Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

yazdi · July 19, 2011, 1:29pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace yazdi

Instead of trying to interpret what I am saying by “what did he mean by writing this” approach … think scientific and see that your accusation about me saying

****..in this post …

Is totally unfounded … then you spin off unfounded remarks to draw unfounded conclusions … there is absolutely no chance that I implied that speciation cannot occur … because I do believe that humans can interfere with nature and hence we can create situations that nature may not otherwise create for itself … So as long as you realise that I do not believe that speciation is impossible then we can move on …

Now the question to ask is since speciation is technically possible where has it happened … and you say it has happened in the hybridzation experiments … however are the findings from hybridization experiments a fair test for evolution? Is speciation actually occurring? And I say that they are not fair tests … I say this because hybridzation is not the process of evolution … to see my idea of a fair test for evolution go to this post …

To add insult to injury you go on and say this …

** **in this post

Actually I never gave this impression … This is what you are casting on me … I understand evolution … it appears you do not … I have mentioned the common ancestor theory here many times … So humans and Chimpanzees have a common ancestor … it begs the question could we come from that ancestor? So we came from something that no longer exists … but how do we check that we came from them? - There is no way to check for this because they are all dead. There is no way to prove it or disprove it … hence it is a belief. This common ancestor was single gene pool and allegedly it split in two groups that separately evolved … so there is one gene pool that becomes two … unfortunately the common ancestor remains are fossils and fossils are like rock - they no longer contain any DNA that we can ascertain any notion of parenthood. This is not to say that I am suggesting that humans came from monkeys … to say that would be old school evolution - new school evolution is more clever with the common ancestor there is no way to prove that wrong. A theory that cannot be proven wrong and not proven right is a belief.

I am really confused about what you said, and what you meant, and what I understood, and what you actually wanted to say, and what you finally said, but what you actually meant..

Let’s do one thing at a time to unwind this what I said and what I did not mean discussion..

Just explain me the post below, and explain what you actually meant:

You must have known before posting this example that cross breeding/interracial breeding is totally against Allopatric speciation/evolution as you claim to be a science scholar. Just give me this answer without going left and right that why did you post this example to disprove evolution..

Allopatric speciation (from the ancient Greek allos, “other” + Greek patrida, “fatherland”) or geographic speciation is speciation that occurs when biological populations of the same species become isolated due to geographical changes such as mountain building or social changes such as emigration.** The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to different selective pressures, (b) they independently undergo genetic drift, and (c) different mutations arise in the populations’ gene pools.**

psyah · July 19, 2011, 2:11pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace yazdi

This posttakes the biscuit !!! It’s good because it is not your post … you have pasted it from elsewhere now lets analyse the first paragraph of this post …

1-Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable. This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting.

According to this post it is a misconception that all science depends on controlled experiments and evolution cannot be studied with experiments … based on the assertion of the critics of evolution who say it is not science because it is not observable or testable.

It goes on to say “many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation” and then attempts to provide an example of a scientific investigation without “holding stars in their hands” ??? Wait a sec … surely we were just talking about observation and the writer of this piece has used a “switch” mechanism where he/she has asserted that observation means that what we can hold with our hands and therefore since astronomy does not involve holding with our hands it is attempting to counter act the argument of evolution critics … You see evolution critics didn’t say evolution is not science because “you can’t hold it in your hands” we say that it is not science because “you can’t observe it” … I’m sorry but astronomy involves observation and to use such a bizarre example to say that astronomy is science but doesn’t touch stars is a fallacious line of argumentation.

And then it states “geologists cannot go back in time” - that is another fallacious line of argumentation. The bulk of geology is not about dating rock - it is about measuring its properties … and the dating of rock is undertaken by a process that is taking place now ready to be measured. I have no problem in dating bones (well not much of a problem, but that is a different topic) however dating bones or rock does not equate to knowing what evolved from what or when they speciated if such a notion is true (I insist as far as science is concerned there is a possibility)

What takes the biscuit is the line I have made orange … compare it to the main line of criticism and you will see the problem …

You see evolutionists have made a fundamental error with semantics and these semantics are critical to the truth of this topic …

In reality when an evolutionist talks about “observation” he is really talking about “inspection” … the difference is this … “observation” is taking place over an “event” or a “process” … whereas “inspection” takes place on “results”, “records”, “marks” and “signs”.

Evolution is not observable like stars are observable like their colour and behaviour are observable like the rocks are observable like the radioactive isotopes they give off are observable - evolution evidence doesn’t actually do anything it just sits there waiting to be inspected and concluded upon … In fact the closest science to evolution is archaeology … both evolution and archaeology utilise the other sciences to build pictures of what could have happened - archaeology is like a crime scene investigation. Forensics tells you what is there - it doesn’t tell you how it got there … that takes a court case to tell you that … however evolution is like relying on forensic findings alone to incriminate - there is no court case there is no reasoning for alternative theories.

yazdi · July 19, 2011, 2:24pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

^^^
Universities from Harvard to Berkeley.. From Oxford to MIT.. Or any other reputable educational institution in the world teach evolution as Science... Only a genius science scholar like you thinks evolution is a belief system.. They are all dishonest idiots according to you..

No at least you upgraded evolution from a belief system to archeology..

BTW read your first post in this thread before starting the mantra where I said humans born to monkeys.. I am still waiting reply to my earlier post..

T1000 · July 19, 2011, 2:36pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

I don’t know what have been discussed yet and what not. I don’t buy this evolution concept before but after having few discussions with some friends, I realized that

The concept of evolution that WE understand is totally different from what it meant to be.

Evolution doesn’t mean that “humans” ancestors were APPS .. that would be extreme.

There is a concept which is called “survival of the fittest”. In which every species, try to mould itself to live in the climate they are .. .. the living example is that when we are living in hot an humid country for 10-15 years, we are okay to bear a hot weather of 45C but when we move to some place which is not that hot, after 10-15 years 45C isn’t acceptable for us. Reason our body has evoloved and accepted “new weather”

Please watch this …

From islamic point of view:

there is no doubt that Adam and Eve was sent from heaven to earth
However, I believe, that before they arrive, the process of living things had been started on earth and it was going under difference changes. So by the time Adam and Eve came here the place (earth) was evolved to a condition which was acceptable to humans ..

psyah · July 19, 2011, 2:41pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Why India is not involved in the Baloch uprising

I am really confused about what you said, and what you meant, and what I understood, and what you actually wanted to say, and what you finally said, but what you actually meant..

Let’s do one thing at a time to unwind this what I said and what I did not mean discussion..

Just explain me the post below, and explain what you actually meant:

You must have known before posting this example that cross breeding/interracial breeding is totally against Allopatric speciation/evolution as you claim to be a science scholar. Just give me this answer without going left and right that why did you post this example to disprove evolution..

Allopatric speciation - Wikipedia

Allopatric speciation (from the ancient Greek allos, “other” + Greek patrida, “fatherland”) or geographic speciation is speciation that occurs when biological populations of the same species become isolated due to geographical changes such as mountain building or social changes such as emigration.** The isolated populations then undergo genotypic and/or phenotypic divergence as: (a) they become subjected to different selective pressures, (b) they independently undergo genetic drift, and (c) different mutations arise in the populations’ gene pools.**

Peace yazdi

Why are you using speciation to prove speciation? In this article on wikipedia - it uses the term “may” 12 times and “can” 5 times … Allopatric speciation is by no means solid. Creating a different race is not speciation - the word is wrong … Speciation comes from species … different human races are the same species and different fruit flies that have been bred selectively from the same source are the same species … It appears some pro-evolutionist coined the term Allopatric speciation …

My simple explanation is this … humans are humans and despite looking quite different we are still all human. Despite being separated by many years when Europeans travelled to exotic countries they actively “mated” with natives to produce offspring. My point in posting that was that animals of clearly different species may be mated once but their offspring is sterile … the test of the “different” fruit fly mating together to produce offspring was successful because they were derived initially from the same gene pool and then brought back together - that is not the case with lions and tigers, donkeys and horses, etc … the experiment proves nothing … evolution wouldn’t work if the outcome of two different species is a sterile being.

What is it that distinguishes “race” from “species” - when we measure the fruit fly experiment what are we measuring “race” or “species” - if it is the “race” of the fly … then should we be calling it speciation?

psyah · July 19, 2011, 2:50pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace yazdi

Well it seems credentials have a greater hold on you than clear talking. That I can do nothing about ... I'm a nobody in the greater scheme of things, but I'm right ... If there is a scientific theory it should be called a theory to call it fact is to take something unsubstantiated as real - this subjective form of uptake is called belief. It doesn't matter how much money they throw at it ... The first universities in the world were religious ones the first modern scientists were religious and they never secularised the two disciplines from one another ... We can see how science and religion have evolved away from one another through time - but that seemed to be a very conscious process by the European secularists. (Whoops I'm changing the subject)

I said that I wanted to see human born to non-human ... this is a cogent statement with common ancestor because the ancestor of human and chimp is both a non-chimp and a non-human. Enough said on that level ...

diwana · July 20, 2011, 4:47am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Happy Birthday 4gotton

I respect your approach that you want to explore evolution in purely scientific manner. In fact it is the most logical approach provided you don’t have any judgmental biases such as the ones I have pointed out. We are in the philosophy section and it was imperative for me to define my standing in that context.

Please ignore the religious dimensions from my posts. I have tried to explain you the difference between mathematical/scientific concepts. I am posting another link for you to study the meaning of science theory or a concept.** Science does not explore/investigate/probe the level of certainty of an idea on the basis of a belief as some posters are trying to misguide the readers in this thread by projecting evolution as a belief system because of the non availability of evidence of their personal liking.. rather science relies on observed data.** I am sure once you will start exploring evolution on the basis of observed data.. you will increase your idea about it’s level of certainty. The figures are quoted to show you most of the scientist subscribe to evolution with a very high degree of certainty not only in USA but every where in the world.. just google and you will be amazed at the figures/percentages of scientist who lean towards the validity of evolution..

Misconceptions about evolution

Misconceptions about evolution and the nature of science

1-Evolution is not science because it is not observable or testable. This misconception encompasses two incorrect ideas: (1) that all science depends on controlled laboratory experiments, and (2) that evolution cannot be studied with such experiments. First, many scientific investigations do not involve experiments or direct observation. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but both scientists can learn a great deal about the universe through observation and comparison. In the same way, evolutionary biologists can test their ideas about the history of life on Earth by making observations in the real world. Second, though we can’t run an experiment that will tell us how the dinosaur lineage radiated, we can study many aspects of evolution with controlled experiments in a laboratory setting.** In organisms with short generation times (e.g., bacteria or fruit flies), we can actually observe evolution in action over the course of an experiment. And in some cases, biologists have observed evolution occurring in the wild. To learn more about rapid evolution in the wild, visit our news story on climate change, our news story on the evolution of PCB-resistant fish, or our research profile on the evolution fish size in response to our fishing practices. **To learn more about the nature of science, visit the Understanding Science website.

2-Evolution is ‘just’ a theory. This misconception stems from a mix-up between casual and scientific use of the word theory. In everyday language, theory is often used to mean a hunch with little evidential support. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are broad explanations for a wide range of phenomena. In order to be accepted by the scientific community, a theory must be strongly supported by many different lines of evidence. Evolution is a well-supported and broadly accepted scientific theory; it is not ‘just’ a hunch. To learn more about the nature of scientific theories, visit the Understanding Science website.

3-Evolutionary theory is invalid because it is incomplete and cannot give a total explanation for the biodiversity we see around us. This misconception stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of scientific theories. All scientific theories (from evolutionary theory to atomic theory) are works in progress. As new evidence is discovered and new ideas are developed, our understanding of how the world works changes and so too do scientific theories. While we don’t know everything there is to know about evolution (or any other scientific discipline, for that matter), we do know a great deal about the history of life, the pattern of lineage-splitting through time, and the mechanisms that have caused these changes. And more will be learned in the future. Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory, does not yet explain everything we observe in the natural world.** However, evolutionary theory does help us understand a wide range of observations (from the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria to the physical match between pollinators and their preferred flowers), does make accurate predictions in new situations (e.g., that treating AIDS patients with a cocktail of medications should slow the evolution of the virus), and has proven itself time and time again in thousands of experiments and observational studies. To date, evolution is the only well-supported explanation for life’s diversity.** To learn more about the nature of scientific theories, visit the Understanding Science website.

4-Gaps in the fossil record disprove evolution. While it’s true that there are gaps in the fossil record, this does not constitute evidence against evolutionary theory. Scientists evaluate hypotheses and theories by figuring out what we would expect to observe if a particular idea were true and then seeing if those expectations are borne out. If evolutionary theory were true, then we’d expect there to have been transitional forms connecting ancient species with their ancestors and descendents. This expectation has been borne out. Paleontologists have found many fossils with transitional features, and new fossils are discovered all the time. However, if evolutionary theory were true, we would not expect all of these forms to be preserved in the fossil record. Many organisms don’t have any body parts that fossilize well, the environmental conditions for forming good fossils are rare, and of course, we’ve only discovered a small percentage of the fossils that might be preserved somewhere on Earth. So scientists expect that for many evolutionary transitions, there will be gaps in the fossil record. To learn more about testing scientific ideas, visit the Understanding Science website. To learn more about evolutionary transitions and the fossils that document them, visit our module on this topic.

Misconceptions about the acceptance of evolution

1-The theory of evolution is flawed, but scientists won’t admit it. Scientists have studied the supposed “flaws” that anti-evolution groups claim exist in evolutionary theory and have found no support for these claims. These “flaws” are based on misunderstandings of evolutionary theory or misrepresentations of the evidence. As scientists gather new evidence and as new perspectives emerge, evolutionary theory continues to be refined, but that doesn’t mean that the theory is flawed. Science is a competitive endeavor, and scientists would be eager to study and correct “flaws” in evolutionary theory if they existed. For more on how evolutionary theory changes, see our misconception on this topic above.

2-Evolution is a theory in crisis and is collapsing as scientists lose confidence in it. Evolutionary theory is not in crisis; scientists accept evolution as the best explanation for life’s diversity because of the multiple lines of evidence supporting it, its broad power to explain biological phenomena, and its ability to make accurate predictions in a wide variety of situations. Scientists do not debate whether evolution took place, but they do debate many details of how evolution occurred and occurs in different circumstances.** Antievolutionists may hear the debates about how evolution occurs and misinterpret them as debates about whether evolution occurs. Evolution is sound science and is treated accordingly by scientists and scholars worldwide.**

3-Most biologists have rejected ‘Darwinism’ and no longer agree with the ideas put forth by Darwin and Wallace. It is true that we have learned a lot about evolution since Darwin’s time. Today, we understand the genetic basis for the inheritance of traits, we can date many events in the fossil record to within a few hundred thousand years, and we can study how evolution has shaped development at a molecular level. These advances — ones that Darwin likely could not have imagined — have expanded evolutionary theory and made it much more powerful; however, they have not overturned the basic principles of evolution by natural selection and common ancestry that Darwin and Wallace laid out, but have simply added to them. It’s important to keep in mind that elaboration, modification, and expansion of scientific theories is a normal part of the process of science. For more on how evolutionary theory changes, see our misconception on this topic above.

Thanks Yazdi bhai.

I have read the arguments before and now. Also I have seen this video posted by T1000.

Very good video from Evolutionists perspective.

Needless to say:

**Evolution theory itself is evolving.
**
As times changes, like I said above the definition keeps changing to encompass the concepts which are feeded by the opponents to apease them.

Yet, the **theory remains largely a presumtion based on certain observed items.

**Life changing from single cell organism to complex organism is the basic concept but people forget that even single cell organisms are complex and very intelligently designed.

The whole genome change can never be observed to make a new species from other. That even evolutionists admit. And they say it takes x many years to evolve and they use **adaptation or mutations **as possible mechanism for change in species over time.

Basically, **retrosective analysis **of some broken ‘evidences’ are being used as a means to convince that this theory is somehow has validity.

So what is next ‘species’ to be developed after human? Any speculation?

But then one must say:

~Kaun Jeeta Hai Tere Zulf Ke Sar Honay Tak.

Baithak of Bheegiyaad & MasoomMuskaan

I don’t know what have been discussed yet and what not. I don’t buy this evolution concept before but after having few discussions with some friends, I realized that

The concept of evolution that WE understand is totally different from what it meant to be.

Evolution doesn’t mean that “humans” ancestors were APPS .. that would be extreme.

There is a concept which is called “survival of the fittest”. In which every species, try to mould itself to live in the climate they are .. .. the living example is that when we are living in hot an humid country for 10-15 years, we are okay to bear a hot weather of 45C but when we move to some place which is not that hot, after 10-15 years 45C isn’t acceptable for us. Reason our body has evoloved and accepted “new weather”

Please watch this …

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8

From islamic point of view:

there is no doubt that Adam and Eve was sent from heaven to earth

However, I believe, that **before they arrive, the process of living things had been started on earth and it was going under difference changes. So by the time Adam and Eve came here the place (earth) was evolved to a condition which was acceptable to humans **..

Wow!
What an imagination.

sharaabee · July 20, 2011, 4:59am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

These imaginations are nothing but a delusion thought process to make yourself feel better about the lack of logic in faith. It's a desperate attempt to reconcile your faith with science.

It's hard to give up on faith, something that has been ingrained in you since childhood. It's hurts our ego to admit to ourselves that look.. something is not right with these stories. Maybe this is all made up by desert dwellers 1000s of years ago?

yazdi · July 20, 2011, 6:24am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

T1000:

I don't know what have been discussed yet and what not. I don't buy this evolution concept before but after having few discussions with some friends, I realized that

The concept of evolution that WE understand is totally different from what it meant to be.

Evolution doesn't mean that "humans" ancestors were APPS .. that would be extreme.

There is a concept which is called "survival of the fittest". In which every species, try to mould itself to live in the climate they are .. .. the living example is that when we are living in hot an humid country for 10-15 years, we are okay to bear a hot weather of 45C but when we move to some place which is not that hot, after 10-15 years 45C isn't acceptable for us. Reason our body has evoloved and accepted "new weather" .

Let me try to better word your thoughts about "Survival of the fittest" notion by sharing these quotes:

They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale of our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.
We are the survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecule known as genes. The genes are master programmers, and they are programming for their lives..
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
Each generation is a filter, a sieve; good genes tend to fall through the sieve in to the next generation; bad genes tend to end up in bodies that die young or without reproducing.
The river of my title is a river of DNA, and it flows through time, not in space. It's a river of information, not a river of bones and tissues..

River of Eden, Richard Dawkins

If you understand the concept of DNA/selfish genes.. being a parasite residing in our bodies made of tissues and bones, fighting/programming for their survival.. altering the vehicles they design to reside according to the changing survival needs.. we are just carriers of these genes from our ancestors to our offspring.. and this is what evolutionary biology all about..!!!

yazdi · July 20, 2011, 7:06am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

diwana:

Thanks Yazdi bhai.

I have read the arguments before and now. Also I have seen this video posted by T1000.

Very good video from Evolutionists perspective.

Needless to say:

*Evolution theory itself is evolving. * As times changes, like I said above the definition keeps changing to encompass the concepts which are feeded by the opponents to apease them.

Yet, the **theory remains largely a presumtion based on certain observed items.

**Life changing from single cell organism to complex organism is the basic concept but people forget that even single cell organisms are complex and very intelligently designed.

The whole genome change can never be observed to make a new species from other. That even evolutionists admit. And they say it takes x many years to evolve and they use **adaptation or mutations **as possible mechanism for change in species over time.

Basically, **retrosective analysis **of some broken 'evidences' are being used as a means to convince that this theory is somehow has validity.

So what is next 'species' to be developed after human? Any speculation?

)

Diwana bhai,

I have read your post carefully. Most of your criticism against evolutionary science is because of your wrong understanding of evolution. it's not about forming complex life forms from single cells.. it's not about speciation. It's about genetic/DNA drift happening because of survival pressures.

Had it been about speciation, how do you explain the genetic drifts happening in bacteria which reproduce asexually. We have seen recent genetic drifts happening in bacteria developing resistance against antibiotics.

Moreover it's not true that science examines observed evidence on pre-assumed theories. If that was true how do you take the observed evidence in case of bacteria developing resistance against antibiotics, or pests developing resistance against pesticides in very short span of time due to genetic drifts.

72 Nobel laureates signed a document in favor of evolution.. this was the single largest collection of nobel laureate signatures on one document. Every reputed university from Cambridge to Columbia teaches evolution as science. Do you think they are all dishonest, and have pre-assumed the theory without observed evidence. Remember science is all about the determination of certainty in the light of observed evidence.

Your approach towards science is very positive.. you want to explore science without religious/other prejudices. Study evolution with an open mind, and you will see it's not what some people are telling you.. An overwhelming majority of scientists are neither stupid nor dishonest. There are mountains of observed evidence pointing towards evolutionary biology..

And as for definition of evolution changing.. somebody has misguided you again. The principle/definition has remained the same. With every new discovery our understanding is expanding..

Regarding your desire to speculate about the future of human beings.. If our planet survives further in enough geological times with goldilock conditions.. we can say with a high level of certainty that a time will come when our specie will become extinct.. like all the other species that have lived on our planet in the geological distant history of our planet.. and our planet will be populated by some different life forms..!!!

T1000 · July 20, 2011, 1:24pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

This sentence tells me that your whole concept of evolution is ZERO! ..

As mentioned in the video, a new specie doesn't develop in a night .. .. perhaps "we" are already an evolved specie of humans when it is compared to dark ages human (age, skeleton structure, immune system against different disease, eating habits, strength etc) - but we don't feel it as a change because we are PART of this process .. Perhaps, down the road, after 3-4 million years, the humans of those time would be totally different .. emm .. lets say more shorter, less power (since gadgets are taking away our strength) etc ..

I gave you a very basic example earlier.

Let me tell you one example .. when i used to live in pakistan, I was able to eat every single thing of lahore food street and could drink water without getting sick. but now when i go there, I fell sick right after my first 2-3 meals. Could you please explain WHY is it so? I mean most of the people say that my stomach is not used to eat those foods anymore ever since i started living in a "cleaner" area .. .. does this make sense?

DON'T EXPLAIN ME THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION .. JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION I ASKED ABOVE. Please!

diwana · July 20, 2011, 1:56pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

T1000:

This sentence tells me that your whole concept of evolution is ZERO! ..

As mentioned in the video, a new specie doesn't develop in a night .. .. perhaps "we" are already an evolved specie of humans when it is compared to dark ages human (age, skeleton structure, immune system against different disease, eating habits, strength etc) - but we don't feel it as a change because we are PART of this process .. Perhaps, down the road, after 3-4 million years, the humans of those time would be totally different .. emm .. lets say more shorter, less power (since gadgets are taking away our strength) etc ..

I gave you a very basic example earlier.

Let me tell you one example .. when i used to live in pakistan, I was able to eat every single thing of lahore food street and could drink water without getting sick. but now when i go there, I fell sick right after my first 2-3 meals. Could you please explain WHY is it so? I mean most of the people say that my stomach is not used to eat those foods anymore ever since i started living in a "cleaner" area .. .. does this make sense?

DON'T EXPLAIN ME THE CONCEPT OF EVOLUTION .. JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION I ASKED ABOVE. Please!

First you said based on my sentence somehow I have zero concept of evolution and then you answered along the same line perhaps after 304 million years the human of those tiime would be totally different! (Another presumption by the way)

So my question was valid!

Let's move on.

I wiill try to answer Yazdi Bhai also aling with your example.

The Evolutionists have been the one confused about this theory for centuries. They make a distinction between Darwinism and Evolution.

The adatation or ability to fight with diseases is included in the definition just to encompass all the possibities so no one can come and dispute the theory.

When somene extrapolate adaptation, mutation or gene deletion, tansfer to assuming that with time new species would develop that is where the main problem lies.

Trust me, if you start living outside Lahore, you will not somehow make a new generatiion over time which will not be able to fight against diseses who start living in Lahore in future. Your body still has the abilty. But why you cannot fight now is that your body is not exposed to infection on regular basis. The immunoglobilins will be made again if you get exposed regularly again.

Moreover, Your offprings will still be human over next 3-4 million years regardless you can fight against the disease or not.

Same goes with bacteria. E-coli remains E-coli regardless it develps resistance or not. Evolutionists say adaptation is evolution, my position is adding adaptation to evolution definition is false advertisement.

This theory of change in whole genome graually is based on little little examples like adaptation. But has not been observed or proven nor it can be proved since the argument of 3-4 million years is used so no one can dispute.

Bhai mere, evolution does say life began with single cell and became evolved to make larger multicellular organisms.

Evolution is a faith. Not science in true terms since it cannot be observed that over time new species develop or go to extinct.

What is extinct/evolved now, has happened (according to this faith). What will become extinct/evolved has not occured yet.

Got it?

T1000 · July 20, 2011, 3:30pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

diwana:

First you said based on my sentence somehow I have zero concept of evolution and then you answered along the same line perhaps after 304 million years the human of those tiime would be totally different! (Another presumption by the way)

So my question was valid!

Let's move on.

I wiill try to answer Yazdi Bhai also aling with your example.

The Evolutionists have been the one confused about this theory for centuries. They make a distinction between Darwinism and Evolution.

The adatation or ability to fight with diseases is included in the definition just to encompass all the possibities so no one can come and dispute the theory.

When somene extrapolate adaptation, mutation or gene deletion, tansfer to assuming that with time new species would develop that is where the main problem lies.

*Trust me, if you start living outside Lahore, you will not somehow make a new generatiion over time which will not be able to fight against diseses who start living in Lahore in future. Your body still has the abilty. But why you cannot fight now is that your body is not exposed to infection on regular basis. The immunoglobilins will be made again if you get exposed regularly again. *

Moreover, Your offprings will still be human over next 3-4 million years regardless you can fight against the disease or not.

Same goes with bacteria. E-coli remains E-coli regardless it develps resistance or not. Evolutionists say adaptation is evolution, my position is adding adaptation to evolution definition is false advertisement.

This theory of change in whole genome graually is based on little little examples like adaptation. But has not been observed or proven nor it can be proved since the argument of 3-4 million years is used so no one can dispute.

Bhai mere, evolution does say life began with single cell and became evolved to make larger multicellular organisms.

Evolution is a faith. Not science in true terms since it cannot be observed that over time new species develop or go to extinct.

What is extinct/evolved now, has happened (according to this faith). What will become extinct/evolved has not occured yet. Got it?

:) glad you mentioned in this way .. .. thats the point i am trying to make .. I am not **saying that after 3-4 million years humans wouldn't be humans** .. what i am saying that those human wouldn't be like the humans of TODAY's WORLD! .. they would have been changed a lot, genetically, their immune system and perhaps their bone structure as well .. another very basic example would be humans of different geologic regions have different skin tones .. .. people living in cold areas are fair compared to the people living near equator .. .. THEY ARE STILL HUMAN .. but their genes have been changed to face the sun rays .. it might have took million years just to change the SKIN TONE of these humans .. who knows how many billion years would it take to see an entirly different skeleton structure of humans ?

The problem is, ALL OF US (even I) used to believe that evolution will give birth to "new" species .. but its false .. it makes changes over the period of time .. and after long long long long long long long time the changes are so far from original that it is called a new specie though its still the same. When we talk about evolution we talk about EXTREME cases .. i.e. either some specie would extinct or some specie would be born .. .. These are extreme cases and i don't think these cases should be the base of such arguments.

P.S:
Regarding the lahore example, you are 100% right I still have those genes, but at the same time my those genes/my power to fight against those diseases is being SUPPRESSED. i am still able to fight with them but it will take some time to bring 'em back .. like 2-3 days or months .. .. reason being that this change isn't permanent YET ..

psyah · July 20, 2011, 8:23pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace

Better and better research has only added dents in the idea of evolution which leads to desperate modifications of the base theory … In this thread we hear that Chimps are allegedly >98.5% like us … yet even a child can tell they are very different from us just by observing their behaviour and form.

I was reading up on phylogenies when I stumbled across this article …

**A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect.2 Roy Britten, author of the study, puts the figure at about 95% when insertions and deletions are included. Importantly, there is much more to these studies than people realize.

The >98.5% similarity has been misleading because it depends on what is being compared. There are a number of significant differences that are difficult to quantify. A review by Gagneux and Varki4 described a list of genetic differences between humans and the great apes. The differences include ‘cytogenetic differences, differences in the type and number of repetitive genomic DNA and transposable elements, abundance and distribution of endogenous retroviruses, the presence and extent of allelic polymorphisms, specific gene inactivation events, gene sequence differences, gene duplications, single nucleotide polymorphisms, gene expression differences, and messenger RNA splicing variations.’4

Specific examples of these differences include:
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes while chimpanzees have 24. Evolutionary scientists believe that one of the human chromosomes has been formed through the fusion of two small chromosomes in the chimp instead of an intrinsic difference resulting from a separate creation.
At the end of each chromosome is a string of repeating DNA sequences called a telomere. Chimpanzees and other apes have about 23 kilobases (a kilobase is 1,000 base pairs of DNA) of repeats. Humans are unique among primates with much shorter telomeres only 10 kilobases long.7

While 18 pairs of chromosomes are ‘virtually identical’, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show evidence of being ‘remodeled.’5 In other words, the genes and markers on these chromosomes are not in the same order in the human and chimpanzee. Instead of ‘being remodeled’ as the evolutionists suggest, these could, logically, also be intrinsic differences because of a separate creation.

**For the full article …

The evolution section under Human genome on Wikipedia is also an interesting read …

psyah · July 20, 2011, 8:48pm

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

This is really important ... now humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes (I mean every human being) and Chimps have 24 pairs ... Regardless of the evolutionists shouting to the top of their voices that evolution takes place gradually over time ... and they claim that the reason for the difference in chromosome couplets between chimp and man is that two of the chimps chromosomes had fused to make one ...

Now we are forced to look at the mechanism of this fusion. If I have 24 balls of modelling clay and I take two of them and join them together to make one I'll have 23 balls of modelling clay ... Now ... there was a point when there was 24 and as soon as I did something there were 23 ... Now the question I have is this ...

If it is true that two chimp chromosomes fuse to make one then it must also be true that a non-human should give birth to a human and that the idea of gradual genetic drift is false ... However, if on the other hand gradual genetic drift is true then the two chromosomes did not fuse together to make one, but then we have the unanswered question how can 24 chromosomes become 23 in gradual stages? I mean the idea that there were 23.5 pairs is ludicrous.

Again I'm not saying evolution is not possible ... I am saying it is possible ... however I am saying further sophistication does not necessarily mean that it gains any more truth to it ...

yazdi · July 21, 2011, 7:27am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

I would like to convey to the people who are taking part in this discussion that if we are criticizing something, we are not criticizing anyone on personal level. Sometimes the words become a little harsher as well to highlight a point.** I don't mind them.** I request others also not to be angered by these harsher words as they are only criticizing opinions. The best thing which is happening here is that we are talking.. in spite of our differences in opinions..

For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. British Telecom advertisement (1993), part of which was used in Pink Floyd's Keep Talking (1994). -Stephen Hawking

psyah · July 21, 2011, 9:05am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

yazdi:

I would like to convey to the people who are taking part in this discussion that if we are criticizing something, we are not criticizing anyone on personal level. Sometimes the words become a little harsher as well to highlight a point.** I don't mind them.** I request others also not to be angered by these harsher words as they are only criticizing opinions. The best thing which is happening here is that we are talking.. in spite of our differences in opinions..

For millions of years, mankind lived just like the animals. Then something happened which unleashed the power of our imagination. We learned to talk and we learned to listen. Speech has allowed the communication of ideas, enabling human beings to work together to build the impossible. Mankind's greatest achievements have come about by talking, and its greatest failures by not talking. It doesn't have to be like this. Our greatest hopes could become reality in the future. With the technology at our disposal, the possibilities are unbounded. All we need to do is make sure we keep talking. British Telecom advertisement (1993), part of which was used in Pink Floyd's Keep Talking (1994). -Stephen Hawking

(Paraphrase)
Man: Why is it that you don't speak much?
Caine: I have nothing important to say
**Kung Fu TV series (1972 -75)

**Let a fool hold his tongue and he will pass for a sage - **Publilius Syrus Maxim 914, First Century BC

We need to listen much and talk only when it is necessary
**psyah 2011

yazdi · July 21, 2011, 9:52am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

@psyah/diwana bhai,

1) The reason I showed my displeasure over you giving example of cross breeding is that this very concept is against Allopatric evolution which says the speciation occurs between two distinct lineages pursuing their individual survival pressures in isolation if they don't cross breed.. The genetic drifts which occur due to these survival pressures may lead to speciation between the two distinct lineages from common gene pool over a period of time. I know you don't believe in Allopatric evolution.. In fact you don't believe in evolution at all.. but the idea here was not what you believe.. the idea was to highlight correctly what the concept of evolution means.. which was not honestly highlighted by you when you gave this example, and to criticize the concept of evolution on the basis of these wrong projections of the concept..

P.S. I did not post the definition of Allopatric speciation as a proof of speciation as you have mentioned. I posted the definition to point out the above mentioned anomaly in your post.

2) Both of you believe that the theory of evolution is a belief/faith.. Belief or faith is phenomenon believed to be true without any observed evidence according to the definition of faith/belief. Evolution is based on observed evidence (may be not up to your satisfaction). So it's dishonest to equate it with faith/belief. After all the nobel laureates, all the reputed educational institutions of the world, 99.8% of scientist with credible credentials who consider evolution as credible science are not dishonest idiots conspiring against people with particular literal religious understandings.

3) Diwana has posted that "Evolution is a faith. Not science in true terms since it cannot be observed that over time new species develop or go to extinct.".. I this argument is deemed fit for any scientific discussion.. then "Atomic theory" is also a faith. Nobody has seen atoms.. protons, neutrons or electrons or isotopes for that matter. Both evolution and atomic theory are taught as science in every reputed educational institution of the world .. in spite of the absence of evidence of visual observation as per the liking of diwana. Genetic drifts have been observed, indications of speciations have been observed, extinctions have been observed, and with every passing day more and more observed evidence are coming forward in support of evolution.. and if diwana and psyah like it or not evolution is treated as valid science by overwhelming majority of scientist and educationist..

4) Your post yesterday about the genetic differences between chimpanzees and humans are derived from a Christian faith based web site with the sole purpose of supporting genesis.. and has nothing to do with the promotion of scientific understandings. I justifiably suspect these kind of web sites because they are more propagandist in nature, rather than promotion of science as a motivation. Please post some link from a reputed science promotion/educational web site to verify the authenticity of the article. Moreover if this article is believed to be true (which I really suspect), it does nothing but highlight that genetic drift/variance between chimpanzees and humans is more than previously believed. So what ???

5) Psyah has admitted that he stands nowhere in the global scientific community with his present stand.. but knows he is right. Right against whom.. Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Oxford. Berkeley.. and nobel laureates.. and more than 99.8% of scientific community with reputed credentials.. Our own Pakistani origin self proclaimed science scholar with unknown credentials.. with a record of back tracking from his previously held positions.. buddy you are fighting a lost cause..!!!

Anyway I can see you changing your positions gradually. I have seen some of your posts initially in this thread which depicted no understanding of the concept of evolution at all, very limited understanding of science, little understanding of the word "theory" in scientific terms, .. at least over the progression of this thread your understanding of the concept has increased which I consider a positive outcome from this discussion..

yazdi · July 21, 2011, 10:08am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Angry again psyah..???

I have nothing against you.. it's just a difference of opinion..!!!!

psyah · July 21, 2011, 10:22am

Re: Why are Muslims against Evolution?!?

Peace yazdi

Evolution is a fairly easy topic however justifying it is quite complicated … Now I understand Allopatric Evolution … But is it true? To check if it is true ... we test it using cross-breeding as a means to determine whether the evolutionary step has indeed occurred. So let’s say humans of different races were isolated enough to alter phenotype but not long enough to alter genotype … it means although we look different we are still part of the same species which means cross-breeding human races will result in fertile offspring … however in the case of the lion and tiger the assumption here is that at some point in the past these two shared a common ancestor and today they have been isolated so long that they can be cross-bred to produce infertile offspring. If we isolate them even longer then the any attempts of cross-breeding will fail because they will be incompatible in total …
The cross-breed check is a good measure of how close two given creatures are to one another … however my contention is not about close two given creatures are … my contention is does closeness necessarily infer commonality of ancestry. And it does not!

Reason for this is that any examples of common ancestors are long dead with no DNA in tact for us to see how “close” they are with living entities that “appear” physically to be like them. Another problem I have is that with all the common ancestors of two or more creatures … why is it that all the common ancestors died off? Why do we not have common ancestors alive today? An isolated strain that did not evolve … what is it about evolution that makes gradual change predetermine that the parent strain will die off in addition to new forms separating?

And another problem I have is about the example of the 23 pair and 24 pair chromosomes in humans and chimps respectively … I didn’t take this from any Chrisitan website (as if because they are Christian they are not to be trusted) … how is it that genetic drift is true in the light of fusing chromosomes? How can that be explained?