Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Good lord! How do you call yourself a scientist with so many flaws in your own theory? I am not a scientist and even I can google it and find something reliable, an experiment that has been done over and over again and surely shows speciation in the making. I am on my iPhone so can't post PDF files. Please look up Evolution experiment with Drosophila. If that doesn't Show speciation in the making then I don't know what does

Peace Theorist

I don't see anything on the internet that shows Drosophila to speciate measured and observed ... please show me the link ... and we'll read through the article here !!!

[Theorist]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^ok, I will post the link when I get home. You gotta promise me that you will set up your own Lab to run this experiment yourself. You can't come back and say so what show me how it's possible on macro level. :D

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^ok, I will post the link when I get home. You gotta promise me that you will set up your own Lab to run this experiment yourself. You can't come back and say so what show me how it's possible on macro level. :D

Peace Theorist

Lol ... I don't intend to run this experiment myself, not until I have the free time and cash ... for now I just want to analyse the parameters of the experiment and question whether they are valid for the conclusions that are being drawn ...

[diwana]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@Theorist

^you are one of a kind, aren’t you? It’s like talking to a wall with you. Don’t try changing the subject when you are asked to put forth a scientific scholarly piece of research that shows mutations and adaptations do not lead to evolutionary changes. It should be very easy for you to find because according to you there is an overwhelming amount of scientists that agree with your pov. I have read the threAd and you have no clue what mutations or adaptation even mean and how it affects evolutionary process. Evolution depends on mutations, adaptation, and natural selection. Prove to me that these Are absolutely unrelated to evolution and i will talk to you. If you address me again in this thread without having done your homework, I will not respond. Thanks for understanding!

First evolutionists make a nutty theory. They cannot prove it. But insist they are correct.
When somene says you are incorrect. They (and people like you) say prove us wrong.

The responsibility is on those who bring the idea to prove it is true. Has not occured yet. Understood?

Read below my other response.

P.S. I know what mutation is and what makes a species species. Reading your posts I know you are just believing what you googled and yet have no clue what is the difference between adaptation and mutation. None makes a species change altogether by the way.

@psyah

Peace Theorist

You asked diwana a question: provide a “piece of research that shows mutations and adaptations do not lead to evolutionary change”

Do you not see the flaw in this request? It’s like saying “provide me some research that shows dogs do not drive cars” - The begging question is not to show mutations and adaptations do not lead to speciation, **but for those who claim that speciation occurs by this process to demonstrate it **… **Mutations are mutations and every test in mutations has NEVER resulted in a change of species that has been “observed” or “reproduced” … the pro-evolutionists claim that it does happen whilst we aren’t looking … LOL **… it only happens when we aren’t looking you see … Besides the human race are strong evidence of non-speciation … We are millions in number and we cross-breed with different races and we still remain human … we do not speciate. Is there any evidence that suggests people who are of different “race” - i.e. genetically removed from one another are less likely to have offspring with one another? I doubt it … The apparent is apparent and you do not need to provide proof for it … where proof is required is where something is not apparent … we can’t say **speciation occurs, show us that it doesn’t **… we need to say show us speciation in the making.

So Theorist … please show us speciation in the making … hmm … I forgot … you’re only a theorist …

Yes.

But, but…you are not looking at such great benefit to mankind by scientists if questioning evolutionists. How dare you?

@Theorist

^ obviously it’s easy relating to the facts because facts are there in front of your eyes. Theories are a little more difficult to deal with. Some people do treat evolution as a fact though I disagree. I cannot pass something as a fact that even scientists have issues with.

Ever heard Khoda Pahaar Nikla Choooha?

You are now getting closer to reality my friend.

I believe evolution to be a real possibility and the likelihood because there’s strong evidence for it.

Also you can’t prove evolution to be a fact because ^no evolution experiments/tests yield the same results. It makes sense that it doesn’t because if it did it would dismiss the entire idea of random mutations and evolution itself. **Like I said earlier I am no scientists

**
Here lies the problem. My friend, you gave me an impression earlier that you were. I was going to ask you a sceintific question but perhaps no need for it.

but if I claimed there are a number of scientists that agree win me I would be able to find a few and bring their work to the table for discussion. I wouldn’t make such claims if I can’t fulfill them. I don’t understand what you mean by worms acquiring eyes one day to be able to see. Mutations obviously occur randomly but there’s a possibility that mutations

Mutations are largely negative traits. Adaptations are largely positive.

are directed so that species **over the period of thousands of years gain organs and abilities to do thing that were once impossible for them. This change obviously doesn’t occur overnight.Nature is not predictable neither are mutations nor conditions on the earth will remain the same over billions of years. **

Hence it is proven that it is merely speculative at best.

A man was in wheelchair.
Had no arms and legs and said to other man he is going to run a marathon and will win the race against those who have arms and legs.

Other man laughed and said you cannot do that.

The man with no arms and legs said:

“Its a real possiblity, because there is strong evidence of it.”

What would you call the man with no legs?

Let me guess…

Evolutionist!

@Theorist

Good lord! How do you call yourself a scientist with so many flaws in your own theory? I am not a scientist and even I can google it and find something reliable, an experiment that has been done over and over again and surely shows speciation in the making. I am on my iPhone so can’t post PDF files. Please look up Evolution experiment with Drosophila. If that doesn’t Show speciation in the making then I don’t know what does

No it did not. That’s adaptation. Not evolution if you are talking about wing size change with altitude.

[yazdi]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@psyah

First of all let's wrap up what we have already discussed and form a common ground to discuss further.

1) We both know each other's philosophical orientations. You are a literal religionist who will prefer the literal interpretation of the scripture in this case quran over any scientific discovery. I on the other hand believe in laws of nature and do not believe in any deviations from them. we are both subscribers of Intelligent Designer theory although for different reasons.. I think the philosophical positions are clear and there is no need to discuss them any further by repeating the same stuff over and over again..

2) We have both agreed that life forms in different geological times are different. Both agree that with passing geological times life forms have become more complex on this planet.

3) We both agree that anatomical changes are possible by artificial selection of genes (you gave an example of grey squirrel, although this example showed your ignorance of Mendel's law of independent assortment).. our point of disagreement is that although anatomical changes can be induced in life forms.. it's not possible to form new species from one life form. Let's define what do we mean by new species to clarify what we are discussing. For me (also most of the scientific community agrees on this) a new specie is formed when the new specie is no longer capable of mating with the original specie to produce an offspring. Barriers to reproduction between two diverging populations are required for the populations to become new species (definition of speciation). If you agree this will be the focal point of our further debate..

4) Now coming to the major point of disagreement in our opinions..
My position is that evolution is highly probable, possible, and likely phenomenon to explain the changes in life forms. While your position s that it is totally unlikely, not possible, with no probability because of the lack of conclusive evidence.. to declare a phenomenon to be declared possible in scientific terms it must have a very conclusive evidence (your opinion)..

What you want from me is to give you that conclusive evidence.. and what I want you to give me is an evidence that it is conclusively disapproved to consider it a possibility. In your previous post you have accused me of committing a logical fallacy by not providing you with conclusive evidence but still insisting on you to consider evolution as a possibility..

Now let me give you an off topic example to clarify my position to you and the readers..

---

We know that today that there are approx. one billion galaxies in the discoverable universe. We reside in a tiny galaxy called milky way with about 500 million stars. The average size of a galaxy in the universe is estimated to be one billion stars per galaxy. So we can estimate the discoverable stars to be something close to billion times billion.

a) My position on the existence of other alien life forms existing on some of these billion times billion stars is :
Highly likely, very probable, definitely possible..
Basis of my position is that every star has a goldilock (life sustaining zone) around it.. We know only one goldilock zone around our sun, and we know life forms exist on the planet which falls in this goldilock zone. It's highly unlikely that life forms exist only this droplet of water (in this case our planet earth) in this ocean (in this case universe) which is full of earth like droplets of water..

b) If you take a similar stand like your position on evolution..
Totally unlikely, not possible, not probable.. unless you go and shake hands with these species/alien life forms physically.. All these indications mentioned in point (a) are not conclusive.. scientific positions should not be taken on indications.. Therefore it should not be taken as a possibility..

---

Now do you understand the fallacy of your argument. Which is a more logical approach as a scientist..(a) OR (b).. Either you have to give me conclusive evidence that evolution is not true and I am mistaken to consider it a possibility... or you have to accept the indications pointing towards evolution.. in this case I can give you numerous examples of actual changes in species through artificial selection (can be considered as a lab test).. according to the definition of speciation mentioned above. Of course I am unable to give you chronology of each and every development stage of every specie with concrete fossil records.. but an overwhelming indicative proof from genetic analysis of common ancestry, similarities between genetic orientation, (chimpanzees and humans have 99.5% similar genetic orientation therefore considered as our nearest cousins), development of complexities for survival and conservation.. through natural selection/artificial selection.. to convince you to consider evolution as a possibility..

I await your answer to move forward.. please remain on topic.. to the point unlike some of your previous posts.. it takes a lot of unproductive and wasteful effort to read some long posts which have very little relevant material inside..!!!

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@yazdi

@psyah

First of all let's wrap up what we have already discussed and form a common ground to discuss further.

1) We both know each other's philosophical orientations. You are a literal religionist who will prefer the literal interpretation of the scripture in this case quran over any scientific discovery. I on the other hand believe in laws of nature and do not believe in any deviations from them. we are both subscribers of Intelligent Designer theory although for different reasons.. I think the philosophical positions are clear and there is no need to discuss them any further by repeating the same stuff over and over again..

2) We have both agreed that life forms in different geological times are different. Both agree that with passing geological times life forms have become more complex on this planet.

3) We both agree that anatomical changes are possible by artificial selection of genes (you gave an example of grey squirrel, although this example showed that your ignorance of Mendel's law of independent assortment).. our point of disagreement is that although anatomical changes can be induced in life forms.. it's not possible to form new species from one life form. Let's define what do we mean by new species to clarify what we are discussing. For me (also most of the scientific community agrees on this) a new specie is formed when the new specie is no longer capable of mating with the original specie to produce an offspring. If you agree this will be the discussion point of our further debate..

4) Now coming to the major point of disagreement in our opinions.. My position is that evolution is highly probable, possible, and likely phenomenon to explain the changes in life forms. While your position s that it is totally unlikely, not possible, with no probability because of the lack of conclusive evidence.. to declare a phenomenon to be declared possible in scientific terms it must have a very conclusive evidence (your opinion)..

What you want from me is to give you that conclusive evidence.. and what I want you to give me is an evidence that it is conclusively disapproved to consider it a possibility. In your previous post you have accused me of committing a logical fallacy by not providing you with conclusive evidence but still insisting on you to consider evolution as a possibility..

Now let me give you an off topic example to clarify my position to you and the readers..

---

We know that today that there are approx. one billion galaxies in the discoverable universe. We reside in a tiny galaxy called milky way with about 500 million stars. The average size of a galaxy in the universe is estimated to be one billion stars per galaxy. So we can estimate the discoverable stars to be something close to billion times billion.

a) My position on the existence of other alien life forms existing on some of these billion times billion stars is : Highly likely, very probable, definitely possible.. Basis of my position is that every star has a goldilock (life sustaining zone) around it.. We know only one goldilock zone around our sun, and we know life forms exist on the planet which falls in this goldilock zone. It's highly unlikely that life forms exist only this droplet of water (in this case our planet earth) in this ocean (in this case universe) which is full of earth like droplets of water..

b) If you take a similar stand like your position on evolution.. Totally unlikely, not possible, not probable.. unless you go and shake hands with these species/alien life forms physically.. All these indications mentioned in point (a) are not conclusive.. scientific positions should not be taken on indications.. Therefore it should not be taken as a possibility..

---

Now do you understand the fallacy of your argument. Which is a more logical approach as a scientist..(a) OR (b).. Either you have give me conclusive evidence that evolution is not true and I am mistaken to consider it a possibility... or you have to accept the indications pointing towards evolution.. in this case I can give you numerous examples of actual changes in species through artificial selection (can be considered as a lab test).. according to the definition of changes mentioned above. Of course I am unable to give you chronology of each and every development stage of every specie with concrete fossil records.. but an overwhelming indicative proof from genetic analysis of common ancestry, similarities between genes, development of complexities for survival and conservation.. through natural selection/artificial selection.. to convince you to consider evolution as a possibility..

I await your answer to move forward.. please remain on topic.. to the point unlike some of your previous posts.. it takes a lot of unproductive and wasteful effort to read some long posts which have very little relevant material inside..!!!

Peace yazdi

No I disagree with your summation ...

1) I am not a literal religionist - you are casting that definition on me. If you want to define me let it be with my words please ... I am a believer that truth is as per scripture - that true science will not conflict with scripture and if it appears to conflict then there is something wrong with our science or our understanding of scripture or both. I however will never question scripture nor take an apologetic view for it.

2) With regards to the two statements the brevity does not do it justice ... there are many examples of less complex species coming in to existence today but on the whole it is a requisite that a simpler organism needs to be present before its more complicated predator is around also some in some cases I believer that less advanced competitors have beaten their more advanced competition and flourished.

3) Wrong again ... I made no reference to inherited traits when I mentioned red and grey squirrels I did it demonstrate that to have two similar fossils in a given area in two different timelines there are other ways to exaplain the record without using the notion that one creature becomes the other. You say "a new species is formed ... when it no longer is able ..." all of this is attempting to explain evolution by assuming it exists ... instead of trying to define how a new species is formed - first show that a new species can be formed ... for me there are only different species - and one major way to determine different species is the inability of two different specimens to mate to produce offspring ... yet the same specimens can produce offspring when they mate with their own kind. In order to demonstrate evolution I would require (I can provide justification) that a single gene pool is used and no attempt of hybridization is used to justify evolution or speciation.

4) My position has never been that evolution is not possible, because in order to deem it "not possible" it would have to be constructed as a falsifiable theory. My position is that it is possible ... but I want to see it proven before I accept it. I want actual observable data on the process not the possible result of the process ... that is all.

Hence I do not accept the terms of your discussion because you have not been able to gauge my stance accurately. I cannot deem some theory as impossible when it is not constructed in a way that allows it to be proven wrong. All I am looking for is proof of evolution if there is no proof then I want people to accept that it is merely a possibility and cannot be treated as even likely because it has no verification. I want to cross-examine any claims of evolution with respect to the parameters and the assumptions made and the logic used in drawing the conclusions.

I know all you want to do is say it is possible ... I ALREADY ACCEPT THAT ... how many times do you want me to say it ... but scientific possibility does not mean that it is happening that way ... in actual factual truth ... to show that it is happening, more than a calculated possibility is required to be given.

[yazdi]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^^^

Before I answer your post please clarify your point one.. Is truth as per literal description presented by scripture.. or can also be metaphoric.. specially in relation to the scientific claims.. (other social descriptions are irrelevant for this discussion)..

And if they can also be metaphoric.. how can I determine which ones you take literally and which ones you consider metaphorically... Is there a rule in this case which helps you separate literal from metaphoric.. ???

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@yazdi

^^^

Before I answer your post please clarify your point one.. Is truth as per literal description presented by scripture.. or can also be metaphoric.. specially in relation to the scientific claims.. (other social descriptions are irrelevant for this discussion)..

And if they can also be metaphoric.. how can I determine which ones you take literally and which ones you consider metaphorically… Is there a rule in this case which helps you separate literal from metaphoric.. ???

Peace yazdi

Yes … now that is a question … The Qur’an is a mix of both … not my words it says so itself …

**He it is Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are Mutashabihat. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the Mutashabihat seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows their true reality except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (3:7)
**
Read this link for more information … The Mutashabihat of the Qur’an

My basis for discerning metaphor from waht is not is, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, that on the whole literal terms are to provide us anchors to our reality - i.e. that they are legal injunctions and that there may be prophecies or detailed knowledge that points to the truth and authenticity of the scripture because a layperson 1400 years ago can not possibly know those things … so literal verses point to the knowledge of Allah (SWT) … and metaphoric ones are usually of two types as well … that they contain within them some sort of message or guidance such as parables or that they are used to explain things that are beyond our knowledge such as Characteristic of Allah (SWT) and aspects of the ghaib … The language helps as well … you will see words such as “as if” or “is like” or “is in similitude to” around verses that are metaphoric/allegorical/analogies/parables.

Another tool to work out the metaphoric verses is to consider the full picture … say “YadAllah” means Hand of Allah, but we know that Allah (SWT) is not like us therefore we can conclude that the reality of “Hand of Allah” is known only to Him, but we can work with this word by taking its metaphoric meaning to make it make sense to us … by taking a literal meaning it will often result in a nonsensical image.

Other methods involve reading what the scholars have said because they have been working on these topics for years they build on the research of previous scholars and know many hadith to contextualise the verses … I hope that helps.

[Theorist]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Ok as promised, psyahThis one biologist ran a lab test for 6 years that concludes that sepciation is likely to start if the right genes jump around in the genome. He even found the gene that’s necessary for fertility. Think that’s a huge improvement and is enough fo me to believe if he continued with this experiment any longer and added geographic isolation as a variable, he would have irrefutable results. Link http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/1813.php, Diane dodd’s fruit flies experiment is an old one but in my opinion still a good one. Both experiments are enough to conclude that speciation is inevitable if species are isolated for a Long time. Like I said earlier we can’t reproduce the same results each time to prove it to be a fact. It is a theory and if someone decides to run such an experiment for even longer- much longer, we will have results no one can refute. To me that shows speciation in action. To creationists, theres never going to be enough proof, which proves my point how hypocritical they really are. They are willing to believe things they can’t see or touch or measure themselves as long as it didn’t go against their faith but will nit pick every little detail and question millions of
scientists because it’s against their faith. Horrible logic! Please do not believe anything scientists say that you can’t see or touch. Also don’t print huge articles in the news papers when a scientist discovers something that just happens to agree with your faith and then refute everything else. If you really looked at evolution with an open mind you will realize this is the best possible explanation of our existence and the fact that we have millions of species some alike some are different points to evolution as the only logical possibility.

[stoppit]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Another paper published a year after the Science one:

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/98/2/103.short

[stoppit]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Some more things to read for anyone who is interested:

Evolutionarily stable strategy - Wikipedia based on the Nash Equilibrium, used by Price and Smith to come up with ESS and then ESS was used by Dawkins to analyse evolution.

John Forbes Nash Jr. - Wikipedia.

Gene-centered view of evolution

There’s plenty of stuff to read if you follow the links at the bottom of each page and the following open pages.

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@Theorist

Ok as promised, psyahThis one biologist ran a lab test for 6 years that concludes that sepciation is likely to start if the right genes jump around in the genome. He even found the gene that’s necessary for fertility. Think that’s a huge improvement and is enough fo me to believe if he continued with this experiment any longer and added geographic isolation as a variable, he would have irrefutable results. Link http://www.eurekalert.org/multimedia/pub/1813.php, Diane dodd’s fruit flies experiment is an old one but in my opinion still a good one. Both experiments are enough to conclude that speciation is inevitable if species are isolated for a Long time. Like I said earlier we can’t reproduce the same results each time to prove it to be a fact. It is a theory and if someone decides to run such an experiment for even longer- much longer, we will have results no one can refute. To me that shows speciation in action. To creationists, theres never going to be enough proof, which proves my point how hypocritical they really are. They are willing to believe things they can’t see or touch or measure themselves as long as it didn’t go against their faith but will nit pick every little detail and question millions of
scientists because it’s against their faith. Horrible logic! Please do not believe anything scientists say that you can’t see or touch. Also don’t print huge articles in the news papers when a scientist discovers something that just happens to agree with your faith and then refute everything else. If you really looked at evolution with an open mind you will realize this is the best possible explanation of our existence and the fact that we have millions of species some alike some are different points to evolution as the only logical possibility.

Peace Theorist

I asked you one thing and you can’t get that right … post the article here … and it has to be an article where speciation is being measured and occuring …

[Theorist]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

I can't, the link should take you to the article. I am on my iPhone, it errors out when I try it. Could you please do the deed? We can both review it.

[stoppit]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Your link is only for a brief article written on the research which does not mean anything on its own. I was surprised to find there was no link or reference to the science in that article. I had to do quite a bit of work to actually find the paper, published in the journal Science. However, a year later the authors presented the above linked work in another journal, backtracking on the science. I can only assume that the first paper was not subject to rigourous enough peer review. For my commentary on biology publishing, please see my post a few pages back.

[stoppit]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

This is a link to the actual paper, if it helps. If anyone wants the full text, they can ask me. Not that I think head or tail can be made of it unless you are very familiar with molecular genetics.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5792/1448.abstract

[yazdi]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@psyah

Peace yazdi

Yes … now that is a question … The Qur’an is a mix of both … not my words it says so itself …

**He it is Who has sent down to you the Book; in it are verses fundamental; they are the foundation of the book: others are Mutashabihat. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the Mutashabihat seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows their true reality except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: ‘We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:’ and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding. (3:7)
**
Read this link for more information … The Mutashabihat of the Qur’an

My basis for discerning metaphor from waht is not is, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread, that on the whole literal terms are to provide us anchors to our reality - i.e. that they are legal injunctions and that there may be prophecies or detailed knowledge that points to the truth and authenticity of the scripture because a layperson 1400 years ago can not possibly know those things … so literal verses point to the knowledge of Allah (SWT) … and metaphoric ones are usually of two types as well … that they contain within them some sort of message or guidance such as parables or that they are used to explain things that are beyond our knowledge such as Characteristic of Allah (SWT) and aspects of the ghaib … The language helps as well … you will see words such as “as if” or “is like” or “is in similitude to” around verses that are metaphoric/allegorical/analogies/parables.

Another tool to work out the metaphoric verses is to consider the full picture … say “YadAllah” means Hand of Allah, but we know that Allah (SWT) is not like us therefore we can conclude that the reality of “Hand of Allah” is known only to Him, but we can work with this word by taking its metaphoric meaning to make it make sense to us … by taking a literal meaning it will often result in a nonsensical image.

Other methods involve reading what the scholars have said because they have been working on these topics for years they build on the research of previous scholars and know many hadith to contextualise the verses … I hope that helps.

I know your above mentioned position on scriptures.. You have posted your thoughts before also on this topic. What I want to specifically enquire is your position on human beings according to quranic literal interpretation being the most superior creations. Your previous position was that you believe in this statement as a literal fact as stated by quaran.

My question is that when you accept evolution as a possibility, no matter how minor this possibility is.. (without going in to the argument of how likely).. you also accept that in future geological times better life forms are also possible on this planet. **Are you going back from your previously stated position and ready to take this quaranic statement as metaphoric when you accept evolution as a possibility.. **

This is an important question from me to understand… Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you give 0.001% probability to evolution when you accept it as a possibility.. but your faith requires you to have 100% belief on scripture… the way you are reasoning with me I have no doubt that you are a person of very high IQ.. I just want to show you that why some intelligent people like you are so much against the idea of evolution.. it’s mostly their bias because of literal interpretations of religions.. not because of lack of indications towards evolution.. your stand is endorsed by only 0.14% of scientist.. and I suspect mostly because of religious reasons..

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html

According to Newsweek, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science… the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared abruptly. That would put the support for creation science among those branches of science that deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% "(Newsweek magazine, 1987).

P.S.

Your comment regarding Richard Dawkins being dishonest because of his religious orientation/or lack of it.. indicate your strong prejudice and bias towards communities/ideas who/which do not subscribe to your interpretation of religious understandings. The fact is honesty and religiosity have no connection as far as human behavior is concerned. The societies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway which are most non religious in this world rank the highest amongst honesty index.

I do not subscribe to your views that strongly religious people are also very honest.. the only thing they are surely good at is being judgmental on individuals. I on my part to not compartmentalize human beings as good or evil.. I rather endorse or reject individual opinions or actions..

[yazdi]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@psyah

Peace yazdi

No I disagree with your summation ...

1) I am not a literal religionist - you are casting that definition on me. If you want to define me let it be with my words please ... I am a believer that truth is as per scripture - that true science will not conflict with scripture and if it appears to conflict then there is something wrong with our science or our understanding of scripture or both. I however will never question scripture nor take an apologetic view for it.

2) With regards to the two statements the brevity does not do it justice ... there are many examples of less complex species coming in to existence today but on the whole it is a requisite that a simpler organism needs to be present before its more complicated predator is around also some in some cases I believer that less advanced competitors have beaten their more advanced competition and flourished.

3) Wrong again ... I made no reference to inherited traits when I mentioned red and grey squirrels I did it demonstrate that to have two similar fossils in a given area in two different timelines there are other ways to exaplain the record without using the notion that one creature becomes the other. You say "a new species is formed ... when it no longer is able ..." all of this is attempting to explain evolution by assuming it exists ... instead of trying to define how a new species is formed - first show that a new species can be formed ... for me there are only different species - and one major way to determine different species is the inability of two different specimens to mate to produce offspring ... yet the same specimens can produce offspring when they mate with their own kind. In order to demonstrate evolution I would require (I can provide justification) that a single gene pool is used and no attempt of hybridization is used to justify evolution or speciation.

4) My position has never been that evolution is not possible, because in order to deem it "not possible" it would have to be constructed as a falsifiable theory. My position is that it is possible ... but I want to see it proven before I accept it. I want actual observable data on the process not the possible result of the process ... that is all.

Hence I do not accept the terms of your discussion because you have not been able to gauge my stance accurately. I cannot deem some theory as impossible when it is not constructed in a way that allows it to be proven wrong. All I am looking for is proof of evolution if there is no proof then I want people to accept that it is merely a possibility and cannot be treated as even likely because it has no verification. I want to cross-examine any claims of evolution with respect to the parameters and the assumptions made and the logic used in drawing the conclusions.

I know all you want to do is say it is possible ... I ALREADY ACCEPT THAT ... how many times do you want me to say it ... but scientific possibility does not mean that it is happening that way ... in actual factual truth ... to show that it is happening, more than a calculated possibility is required to be given.

Now coming back to the main topic..

I have tried to explain you through the example of the strong possibility of alien life forms in the universe. I am not saying this because I shook hands with one of them. There are foot prints indicating in that direction. There are one billion multiplied by one billion potential goldilock zones in the discoverable universe.. We know only one of them and the one we know is populated with life forms. You like to talk about probability.. here you can do your maths..

In the same way there are strong foot prints indicating towards evolution. We don't need a lab experiment from a single gene pool which can prove speciation to treat evolution as a strong probability.. BTW your pre-emptive attempt to exclude hybridization for speciation is not exactly a very honest or open minded approach towards learning. Before I could make my argument using hybridization you started ridiculing the idea of using hybridization as an indication towards evolution. However I will take this as a positive sign for this discussion. At least you have back tracked from your previously stated position that speciation is not possible under any circumstances. Now you are admitting that it is possible through hybridization, but you will be satisfied only when I can prove speciation from a single gene pool.

The reason I am pointing towards Mendel's law of individual assortment, and pointing repeatedly towards your naivety or lack of understanding of this principle.. I'll try to over simplify it for you.. All the genes you are carrying have been transmitted from one of your 8 great grandparents in original form. Now you have admitted to the possibility of speciation because of hybridization.. study this speciation in the light of Mendel's principle. The newly formed specie carries genes from the ancestors coming from different species in original form. The same way we are carrying 99.5% common genes from our common ancestors with our cousin chimpanzees .. in original form. The common ancestors who existed some 4.6 million years ago.. (..and if you do not consider this as an observable data, I think you are insisting on shaking hands with alien life forms)..

These are the kind of foot prints I am talking about which indicate towards evolution as a highly likely principle. These are the kind of foot prints which have convinced 99.8% of scientist with respectable credentials to accept evolution as a highly probable phenomenon. Just like we have not shaken hands with alien life forms but in present times because of the strong foot prints believe the existence of alien life forms with a very high probability..

I can see you back tracking a lot from your previously held positions..

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@yazdi

I know your above mentioned position on scriptures.. You have posted your thoughts before also on this topic. What I want to specifically enquire is your position on human beings according to quranic literal interpretation being the most superior creations. Your previous position was that you believe in this statement as a literal fact as stated by quaran.

My question is that when you accept evolution as a possibility, no matter how minor this possibility is.. (without going in to the argument of how likely).. you also accept that in future geological times better life forms are also possible on this planet. **Are you going back from your previously stated position and ready to take this quaranic statement as metaphoric when you accept evolution as a possibility.. **

This is an important question from me to understand… Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you give 0.001% probability to evolution when you accept it as a possibility.. but your faith requires you to have 100% belief on scripture… the way you are reasoning with me I have no doubt that you are a person of very high IQ.. I just want to show you that why some intelligent people like you are so much against the idea of evolution.. it’s mostly their bias because of literal interpretations of religions.. not because of lack of indications towards evolution.. your stand is endorsed by only 0.14% of scientist.. and I suspect mostly because of religious reasons..

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html

According to Newsweek, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science… the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared abruptly. That would put the support for creation science among those branches of science that deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% "(Newsweek magazine, 1987).

P.S.

Your comment regarding Richard Dawkins being dishonest because of his religious orientation/or lack of it.. indicate your strong prejudice and bias towards communities who do not subscribe to your interpretation of religious understandings. The fact is honesty and religiosity have no connection as far as human behavior is concerned. The societies like Denmark, Sweden, Norway which are most non religious in this world rank the highest amongst honesty index.

I do not subscribe to your views that strongly religious people are also very honest.. the only thing they are surely good at is being judgmental on individuals. I on my part to not compartmentalize human beings as good or evil.. I rather endorse or reject individual opinions or actions..

Peace yazdi

This is an easy question … the answer of which you will find above as well … I have found evolution to only be “scientifically possible” but statistical or mathematical possibility is not my idea of what is real. It is merely the scientific perception of the world … For example in meteorology a hurricane may be possible many times but what actually results is what is real … I do not believe for reasons outside science that we will ever evolve better than we are at the moment … Now you being a supporter of intelligent design should easily acknowledge that position … and scientifically there is nothing that is better than us … We can’t be followers of intelligent design yet at the same time assert that anything is possible, even if it comes out mathematically as possible. Remember science is a tool for our understanding it is not however the only tool and it does have its limitations.

Look for example if take an elastic band and stretch it, there will be a formula that we can map for its elastic region and plastic region, but those formulas will have maximum and minimum points going outside them will render the equations useless … so perhaps what you see is an ever increase improvement profile but in reality the elastic band will snap way before it gets to those points … that is the reality I wish to present here. The Word of God is absolute.

With regards to honesty of people I have no comment to make … let’s consult ourselves and take this matter to as deep we can take it. I didn’t say R. Dawkins was dishonest, but I did say he has a lot to gain for being dishonest … that may be out of his control to see or consider the other view.

[psyah]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@yazdi

Now coming back to the main topic..

I have tried to explain you through the example of the strong possibility of alien life forms in the universe. I am not saying this because I shook hands with one of them. There are foot prints indicating in that direction. There are one billion multiplied by one billion potential goldilock zones in the discoverable universe.. We know only one of them and the one we know is populated with life forms. You like to talk about probability.. here you can do your maths..

In the same way there are strong foot prints indicating towards evolution. We don't need a lab experiment from a single gene pool which can prove speciation to treat evolution as a strong probability.. BTW your pre-emptive attempt to exclude hybridization for speciation is not exactly a very honest or open minded approach towards learning. Before I could make my argument using hybridization you started ridiculing the idea of using hybridization as an indication towards evolution. However I will take this as a positive sign for this discussion. At least you have back tracked from your previously stated position that speciation is not possible under any circumstances. Now you are admitting that it is possible through hybridization, but you will be satisfied only when I can prove speciation from a single gene pool.

The reason I am pointing towards Mendel's law of individual assortment, and pointing repeatedly towards your naivety or lack of understanding of this principle.. I'll try to over simplify it for you.. All the genes you are carrying have been transmitted from one of your 8 great grandparents in original form. Now you have admitted to the possibility of speciation because of hybridization.. study this speciation in the light of Mendel's principle. The newly formed specie carries genes from the ancestors coming from different species in original form. The same way we are carrying 99.5% common genes from our common ancestors with our cousin chimpanzees .. in original form. The common ancestors who existed some 4.6 million years ago.. (..and if you do not consider this as an observable data, I think you are insisting on shaking hands with alien life forms)..

These are the kind of foot prints I am talking about which indicate towards evolution as a highly likely principle. These are the kind of foot prints which have convinced 99.8% of scientist with respectable credentials to accept evolution as a highly probable phenomenon. Just like we have not shaken hands with alien life forms but in present times because of the strong foot prints believe the existence of alien life forms with a very high probability..

I can see you back tracking a lot from your previously held positions..

Peace yazdi

I have never back tracked from my position ... I like any scientist want to evaluate the parameters of an experiment before I agree to the conclusions ... It is dishonest to use hybridization to explain evolution ... and here is the reason why ...

The basic theory of evolution is that there is one gene pool and this splits up in to parts so there is still one gene pool but the creatures of that gene pool occupy two or three different regions. Then the sets due to their conditions separate genetically and after a while the two groups cannot mate with one another.

This uses one gene pool to make two or more ...

hybridization uses two gene pools ... to make a third and hence argues sterility as a genetic difference ... this would be like me cross-breeding a horse with a donkey and because the mule or hinkey that results is sterile then I argue that this is evolution. The problem is that these creatures are totally sterile ... they not only cannot mate with the original forms but they cannot mate with each other to have successful reproduction either ... hence this is not evolution.

Since the conditions of this experiment are not in representation of evolution then how can I accept the argument of speciation? Furthermore the conclusions are not fixed they end the experiment with another belief ... "if this experiment was undertaken longer it would lead to speciation" so even within the confines of the experiment the end hypothesis wasn't realised ...

with regards to common genes ... well this can be argued in the way that the physical make-up of this world allows life in accordance with certain rules ... that life supporting entities will have a given make-up ... it could just as well indicate a common Creator as what you say some sort of parentage due to common genes ... There are only a limited number of genes so it is no surprise that they are shared in living organisms ... but it is not fool proof evidence that since they are shared they came from one another - they could all have just been created from the same Source.

[yazdi]

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@psyah

Peace yazdi

This is an easy question ... the answer of which you will find above as well ... I have found evolution to only be "scientifically possible" but statistical or mathematical possibility is not my idea of what is real. It is merely the scientific perception of the world ... For example in meteorology a hurricane may be possible many times but what actually results is what is real ... I do not believe for reasons outside science that we will ever evolve better than we are at the moment ... Now you being a supporter of intelligent design should easily acknowledge that position ... and scientifically there is nothing that is better than us ... We can't be followers of intelligent design yet at the same time assert that anything is possible, even if it comes out mathematically as possible. Remember science is a tool for our understanding it is not however the only tool and it does have its limitations.

Look for example if take an elastic band and stretch it, there will be a formula that we can map for its elastic region and plastic region, but those formulas will have maximum and minimum points going outside them will render the equations useless ... so perhaps what you see is an ever increase improvement profile but in reality the elastic band will snap way before it gets to those points ... that is the reality I wish to present here. The Word of God is absolute.

With regards to honesty of people I have no comment to make ... let's consult ourselves and take this matter to as deep we can take it. I didn't say R. Dawkins was dishonest, but I did say he has a lot to gain for being dishonest ... that may be out of his control to see or consider the other view.

So in this case your scientific views and religious views do not reconcile.. Your science views tell you that there is a possibility to evolve better than what we are (however small that possibility is), while for other reasons outside science you believe there is zero possibility..

I wanted to show you that your position against evolution is mostly religiously motivated..

I am sure if your religious views change for some reason in future.. your views regarding evolution will also change.. (this is my personal opinion only, and I may be wrong)

I have made my point.. I have nothing further to add in this dimension..!!!