Search the Community

This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah.. Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!! You need to educate yourself on biology... Wait ! http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v496/n7446/full/496419a.html Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world. But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!

By Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains Neanderthals' keen vision may explain why they couldn't cope with environmental change and died out, despite having the same sized brains as modern humans, new research suggests. The findings, published today (March 12) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that Neanderthals developed massive visual regions in their brains to compensate for Europe's low light levels. That, however, reduced the brain space available for social cognition. "We have a social brain, whereas Neanderthals appear to have a visual brain," said Clive Gamble, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study. As a result, the extinct hominids had smaller social and trading networks to rely on when conditions got tough. That may have caused Neanderthals to die off around 35,000 years ago. Brain size riddle Just how smart Neanderthals were has been a long-standing debate. "Either they get regarded as lumbering brutes, or the other side says, 'No, they weren't that stupid. They had enormous brains, so they must have been as smart as we are,'" said study co-author Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Oxford. To help solve the riddle, Dunbar and his colleagues looked at 13 Neanderthal skull fossils dating from 25,000 to 75,000 years ago and compared them with 32 anatomically modern human skeletons. The researchers noticed that some of the Neanderthal fossils had much larger eye sockets, and thus eyes, than do modern humans. [10 Odd Facts About the Brain] Low lighting The team concluded that Neanderthals used their oversized eyes to survive in the lower-light levels in Europe, where the northern latitude means fewer of the sun's rays hit the Earth. (Modern humans also tend to have slightly bigger eyes and visual systems at higher latitudes than those living in lower latitudes, where light levels are higher.) The researchers hypothesized that Neanderthals must, therefore, also have had large brain regions devoted to visual processing. And in fact, Neanderthal skulls suggest that the extinct hominids had elongated regions in the back of their brains, called the "Neanderthal bun," where the visual cortex lies. "It looks like a Victorian lady's head," Dunbar told LiveScience. Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes. By calculating how much brain space was needed for other tasks, the team concluded that Neanderthals had relatively less space for the frontal lobe, a brain region that controls social thinkingand cultural transmission. Isolated and dying The findings explain why Neanderthals didn't ornament themselves or make art, Gamble told LiveScience. These results may also help explain the Neanderthals' extinction, Dunbar said. Smaller social brain regions meant smaller social networks. In fact, artifacts from Neanderthal sites suggest they had just a 30-mile (48.3 kilometers) trading radius, while human trade networks at the time could span 200 miles (321.9 km), Dunbar said. With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said.

"... the evidence supporting descent with modification ... is both overwhelming and compelling." Many Darwinists wonder how we could possibly deny the 'fact of evolution'. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria 'evolving' to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying people possibly not see this? The only explanation, Darwinists say, is that we are willingly ignorant of the truth. However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard scientist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that we deny them is a misrepresentation of our position. A net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination of genes in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain. Define evolution ! Evolutionists usually define their theory as 'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'. But these definitions are oversimplified. The theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual. In much the same way, we must add the 'instructions' which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed microbe-like common ancestor. These instructions must be entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA 'letters' of our common ancestor must change to the three billion 'letters' of humans. The Real Definition according to neo-darwinism: 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'. 'Change over time', 'descent with modification', and 'a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time' are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor. So why does this matter? Fallacy of equivocation: Evolutionists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution). This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument. The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution. When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word 'evolution' and what facts he has to support this. No doubt 'evolution' will mean 'change over time' and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which everyone entirely agree with). To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required). This is illogical to say the least. http://evolutiondismantled.com/evolution-that-slippery-little-word N.B: Allele: One of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome (gene version).

A) Karyotype According to darwinism, human has a microbe-like grandfather, It kept reproducing till we found an imaginary common ancestor for human and chimp. This tale was confronted by the fact that human has 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 ! Looks more or less similar ?! Let's have a look at creatures that have the same number of chromosomes-just like human ! - Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46 - Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus) - Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis) - Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi) - Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) - Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi) - Beach vole (Microtus breweri) - Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus) - Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus/Madoqua kirkii ) - Grey/common vole (Microtus arvalis) - Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi) - Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis) - Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus) - Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus) Sable antelope (Kafue, Zambia) http://zyxo.wordpress.com/2009/06/27/list-of-animal-species-with-46-chromosomes/ On the other hand these species also have 48 chromosomes, just like chimpanzee. - European hare/jackrabbit (Lepus europeus) potatoes tobacco It's obvious that none is a supposed relative neither for human nor chimpanzee ! In fact, the number of chromosomes doesn't hold much importance. What really counts is the genetic information itself.

Introduction One of the most popular alleged evidences for evolution on the internet is Endogenous RetroViral sequences (ERVs). Evolutionists think that a type of virus called a 'retrovirus', once inserted genetic information into one of our ape ancestors' genome. So how is this evidence for evolution? Scientists have noticed that chimps and humans have ERV genetic sequences at very similar points in our DNA. And so the story goes: our common ancestor acquired these ERVs and since humans and chimps are closely related, we should have them in similar spots in our genomes. We do. If we and chimps didn't evolve from a common ancestor (which first acquired the ERVs), how is it possible that we and chimps have ERVs in almost precisely the same locations? The only plausible explanation, evolutionists say, is evolution. But this is far from the truth. If we can show that ERVs are not the product of retroviruses, this evidence for evolution would fall flat. ERVS are simply more or less similar to retrovirus genome: The first problem with this argument is that it’s hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn’t come with a tag attached saying: ” This is an ERV “. It could be that these genes something completely different. That is because if a virus is embedded in it’s complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations. ERVS are Functional If ERVs are found to have function, it would be highly likely that they didn't originate from retroviruses. It would be inconceivable that viral non-functional ERVs somehow became functional. Evidence has surfaced that they do have function. "We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)."(Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics 24(14):1563, 2008) The previous quote is very telling. There are many thousands of ERV sequences in our genome and in that of chimps. Does this mean that all are beneficial? "Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence ... and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome."("Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution Of Gene Regulatory Networks In Humans And Other Primates," ScienceDaily, University of California - Santa Cruz, Nov. 15, 2007.) As we can see, it has been discovered that ERVs aid transcription in one fifth of the human genome! "We report that human ERVs actively shape the p53 transcriptional network in a species-specific manner ... At least one ERV insertion likely reshaped the transcriptional landscape of its surrounding genomic area and was instrumental in creating a new gene that became part of the human-specific p53 regulatory network ... We discovered a unique distribution pattern of p53 sites within repetitive sequences of the human genome, and several ERV families emerged as being substantially enriched for p53 sites in their LTRs."("Retroviral promoters in the human genome,2008"

Introduction BACTERIAL VARIATION Any change in the genotype of a bacterium or its phenotype is known as variation. Genotypic variation can occur as a result of changes in the genes by way of mutation, loss or acquisition of new genetic elements. These variations are heritable. Phenotypic variations are seen temporarily when bacteria are grown under certain environmental conditions. These variations are not heritable. Heritable variations: Mutation: A gene will mutate spontaneously, about once in a hundred million cell divisions. Such bacteria are called mutants. Most of these mutants die, but a when a mutant can adapt itself to the environment more readily; it may emerge as a new variant. Chromosomal mutations may lead to Emergence of drug resistance in bacteria. Examples include methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus, Multi-drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in bacteria Transformation: Some bacteria have ability to uptake naked DNA fragment from the surrounding environment. When such a DNA confers new property to the bacterium, it is termed transformation. Change from R form of Streptococcus pneumoniae to S form as demonstrated by Griffith is due to transformation. Conjugation: Transfer of genetic material (usually plasmids) from one bacterium to another through the mediation of sex pili. Any property that is coded on a transmissible plasmid can be transferred to a recipient bacterium. Properties such drug resistance mediated by beta-lactamases, bacteriocin production etc can be transferred by conjugation. Transduction: Transfer of genetic material through mediation of bacteriophage is known as transduction. Only those strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae that are infected by a beta phage are toxigenic. Change in O antigen in Salmonella (S. anatum->S. newington-> S.minneapolis) is because of lysogenic phage. Transposition: Variations in the flagellar antigens in Salmonella are due to transposons. Similar gene rearrangements may result in antigenic variations, as in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Borrelia recurrentis. Non-heritable variations: A variation in the phenotype of a microorganism, where the genetic constitution remains unchanged is a non-heritable variation. Such variations are seen due to a change in environmental conditions and such variations are neither permanent nor heritable. They may revert back to normal state when the conditions are restored. Some examples are: Loss of flagella in S.typhi when grown in phenol agar (H-O variation) Pleomorphism (variation in shape) in old cultures Lack of pigment production by S.aureus in anaerobic conditions Formation of spheroplasts and protoplasts V-W variation in Salmonella typhi that is characterized by loss of Vi antigen S-R variation in Salmonella typhi that is characterized by loss of O antigen and change in colony morphology to rough type. Production of flagella in Listeria monocytogenes occurs at temperature less than 20oC Last edited in June 2006 http://www.microrao.com/micronotes/variation.htm http://textbookofbacteriology.net/resantimicrobial_3.html

DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, molecules with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups (related to phosphoric acid), with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. During protein synthesis, DNA is transcribed into RNA and then translated to produce proteins. But an error in a single letter in that sequence may damage the entire structure. The leukemia observed in children appears because one of the letters in the DNA is incorrect. The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage in Chernobyl of the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima is harmful effects of this kind caused by mutations in people’s bodies. -------------------------------------- What are mutations ? A gene mutation is defined as an alteration in the sequence ofnucleotides in DNA. This change can affect a single nucleotide pair orlarger gene segments of a chromosome. DNA consists of a polymer of nucleotides joined together. Altering nucleotide sequences most often results in nonfunctioning proteins. Mutations cause changes in the genetic code that lead to genetic variation and the potential to develop disease. Types of mutations:below

Definitions: Fossils (from Latin fossus, literally "having been dug up") الحفرية are the preserved remains or traces of animals , plants, and other organisms from the remote past. Fossil record,السجل الحفري history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of the organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock. Paleontology or palaeontology علم المتحجرات أو الأحياء القديمة أو المستحاثات is the scientific study of prehistoric life. Archaeology, or archeology علم الآثار(from Greek "ancient"), is the study of human activity in the past, primarily through the recovery and analysis of the material culture and environmental data that they have left behind, which includes artifacts, architecture, biofacts and cultural landscapes (the archaeological record). Geochronology التاريخ الجيولوجي is the science of determining the age of rocks, fossils, and sediments Anthropology علم الإنسان is the "science of humanity." Uniformitarianism is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe. Phyletic gradualism is a model of evolution which theorizes that evolution occurs through the accumulation of slight modifications over long periods of time. Punctuated Equilibrium is a theory to explain the absence of transitional forms in the fossil record, which are predicted by Darwinian evolution, It proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the hypothesis proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is thought to be the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another.

Introduction One great evidence for evolution touted by its followers, is the similar structures found in many diverse and closely related organisms. If evolution were true, and all life has evolved from a single common ancestor, we should expect to see similarities present in organisms. However, using these similarities as evidence for evolution makes the argument fallacious on two counts. The Fallacious Argument Evolutionists base the evolutionary tree of life (or, ‘phylogenies’) on the similarities found in animals. In other words, if two animals are similar, it is assumed they are closely related in the evolutionary scale. But for evolutionists to turn around and claim these same similarities ‘prove’ evolution is fallacious. This line of reasoning also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent. Here’s why. Evolutionists claim: "If evolution is true, we would expect to see similarities in organisms. We do see similarities. Therefore, evolution is true." This conclusion may not be true — there are other explanations for similarities in organisms, such as a common designer. To escape their argument being labelled as a fallacy, evolutionists might substitute the conclusion "therefore, evolution is true" with "therefore, evolution is probably true". But this is also fallacious. We could say: "If the moon is made of Swiss cheese, it will have large depressions. The moon has large depressions. Therefore, the moon is probably made of Swiss cheese." Adding ‘probably’ to the conclusion does not change it from being fallacious as it still commits the fallacy of Hasty generalization. Similarities Examined Putting all this aside, is it really true that supposedly closely related organisms have similar structures? Yes, some vertebrates do have similar forelimbs — but this could also be the result of a common designer just as much as the result of common ancestry. "Common design": The reason for similarities It is surely natural for the human body to bear some molecular similarities to other living beings, because they all are made up of the same molecules, they all use the same water and atmosphere, and they all consume foods consisting of the same molecules. Certainly, their metabolisms, and therefore their genetic make-ups, would resemble one another. This, however, is not evidence that they evolved from a common ancestor. This "common material" is the result not of evolution but of "common design," that is, of their being created upon the same plan. It is possible to explain this matter with an example: all construction in the world is done with similar materials (brick, iron, cement, etc.). This, however, does not mean that these buildings "evolved" from each other. They are constructed separately by using common materials. The same holds for living beings as well. However, the complexity of the structure of living things cannot be compared to that of bridges, of course. Life did not originate as the result of unconscious coincidences as evolution claims, but as the result of the creation of God, the Almighty, the possessor of infinite knowledge and wisdom. This in itself overrules any claim that similarities are exclusive evidence for evolution. But the data isn’t as consistent as evolutionists would have you think. Proponents of Darwin’s theory believe that the eye evolved around 30 different times in different animals because there is no sequence to explain this similarity from a common ancestor. Shouldn't we expect the eye to have evolved once (at most, twice or three times) in a single common ancestor? Evolutionists thought so too, but they cannot create any coherent theories to explain the origin of the eye in this way. Scientists were convinced that the Red Panda was closely related to the Giant Panda (photo above) based on many similarities such as extra thumbs, V-shaped jaw, similar teeth, and similar skulls. We now know from DNA studies that the Red Panda (photo above) is actually more related to raccoons and not Giant Pandas or bears. Seals and sea lions look extremely similar; but most evolutionists believe that seals (photo above) is more related to a skunk or otter, while sea lions (below) are more related to a dog or bear. Even though they are very hard to tell apart, seals and sea lions are not related. Many organisms which are commonly thought to be unrelated also have similarities. Fish have fins and swim in water. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and mammals (dolphins). So according to the line of reasoning followed by evolutionists, why aren’t these animals closely related? Birds have wings. But so do mammals (bats) and reptiles (Pterosaurs). Yet they are not closely related and are thought- by evolutionists- to have evolved from an ancestor without wings. Birds have duck-bills. But so do reptiles (hadrosaur) and mammals (platypus). Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without a duck-bill. Birds have bony eye rings. But so do reptiles (Ichthyosaur) and many fish. Yet they are essentially unrelated and are thought to have evolved from an ancestor without eye rings. The placental mole and the pouched mole look extremely similar. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between them. Yet evolutionists think that the whale and the placental mole are more closely related than the placental mole and the pouched mole. The placental mouse and the marsupial mouse are very similar. Yet, evolutionists believe that the placental mouse and the horse are more closely related than the placental mouse and the marsupial mouse. Observer Bias All these examples show the sheer folly of the similarity argument as evidence for evolution. But there is more than that — similarities are strongly subject to observer bias. For instance, the hyrax is classified the ancestor to elephants and sea cow based on teeth; while it is also classified the ancestor of horses and rhinoceros based on the ears. Dr. Daryl Domning said concerning this: "Some scientists have challenged the hyrax, elephant, sea cow connection on the grounds of special anatomical features, like the shape of the teeth in hyraxes, which is much like that of elephants. A particular sac-like structure inside the neck related to the Eustachian tube, which resembles what you see in horses and tapirs, is not found in sea cows or elephants or other mammals. ... In one commonly used approach, it boils down to a matter of counting characters on both sides and using what we call parsimony, the simplest explanation being that the relationship is wherever there is a greater number of characters in common." It all boils down to what a certain scientist sees as similar. There are many instances where scientists differ on what a particular organism’s ancestors were — and these differences in opinion are almost always based on similarities. Convergent Evolution? It is very common for an evolutionist to answer the previously-mentioned anomalies by pointing out that similar organisms could have evolved by means of convergent evolution. Convergent evolution basically says that two or more unrelated organisms evolved to have very similar characteristics independently. Not only does is this 'explanation' a cop-out, but it also undermines the whole principle of the similarity argument: Firstly, it is irrational to claim that convergent evolution sufficiently explains all similarities in unrelated organisms (take the eye for instance which supposedly arose 30 different times!). Secondly, it invalidates the similarity argument: if some similarities in unrelated organisms arose by convergent evolution, how do we know that other similarities in related organisms didn’t arise by convergent evolution? Conclusion The dilemma is such that evolutionists should drop the similarity argument. It is based on fallacious arguments, pseudo-science, and finally, the very process used to explain unrelated similarities (convergent evolution) invalidates the whole argument! This is one ‘proof for evolution’ that should never be used. References *: Interview with Dr. Daryl Domning, Paleontologist and Professor of Anatomy, Howard University, for video series, Evolution: The Grand Experiment conducted October 8, 1998, by Carl Werner. http://evolutiondismantled.com/similarities http://evolutiondeceit.com/en/Makaleler/3368/Common_material,_design_and_designer

Whales cause big problems for some persons, because they say that all mammals evolved on land and then moved into the ocean, after they evolved the special features required for underwater life. They point out that some whales have tiny “legs” that were supposedly once used for walking, but are of no use anymore. Darwin's writings about the origins of the whale show that the idea that they evolved is based entirely on fantasy and preconception (Just for fun): "I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," But Darwin produced no concrete evidence in favour of this claim, and the idea that whales evolved from land-dwelling terrestrial mammals has remained a fairy tale. The tale of “the evolution the whale” by National Geographic magazine: ''The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred. Hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the body became enormous !!!.'' In those terms, the above account is no different to the fairy tale of the frog turning into a prince. (harunyahya.net)

Hybridisation or hybridization التهجين: The process of combining different varieties of organisms to create a hybrid. Hybrid الهَجين: (molecular biology) A complex formed by joining two complementary strands of nucleic acids. In biology, hybrid has two meanings: 1- crosses between populations, breeds or cultivars within a single species. This meaning is often used in plant and animal breeding, where hybrids are commonly produced and selected because they have desirable characteristics not found or inconsistently present in the parent individuals or populations. This flow of genetic material between populations or races is often called hybridization. 2- Offspring resulting from the interbreeding between two animals or plants of different species. Intra-specific hybrids: between different subspecies within a species (such as between the Bengal tiger and Siberian tiger) Inter-specific hybrids or crosses Hybrids between different species within the same genus (such as between lions and tigers) . Inter-generic hybrids: Hybrids between different genera (such as between sheep and goats) . Extremely rare inter-familial hybrids have been known to occur (such as the guineafowl hybrids). No inter-ordinal (between different orders) animal hybrids are known. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_%28biology%29

New Dating Methods Put Neanderthal Extinction Much Earlier Than Previously Thought Lawrence LeBlond for redOrbit.com – Your Universe Online Popular theories have placed the Neanderthal extinction at about 35,000 years ago, based on dating of the earliest bone fossils found at a Neanderthal site in southern Iberia. However, researchers from Australia and Europe are now refuting that evidence after taking another careful look at the bones and implementing an improved method to filter out contamination. Based on the new study, the Neanderthal may have actually died out much earlier, closer to 50,000 years ago. This new theory shakes up the popular belief that has been held in place for some 20 years. It was a widely accepted fact Homo neanderthalensis persisted in southern Iberia while modern humans (homo sapiens) were advancing in the same region. But the international study, in which researchers from the Spanish National Distance Education University (UNED) participated, pokes holes in that hypothesis. If the new evidence holds any weight, then the popular theory that modern humans and Neanderthals co-existed—and possibly even interbred—for millennia has just been shot down, especially as another hugely accepted theory shows modern humans didn’t settle in the region until 42,000 years ago. The new study used the improved dating method “ultrafiltration,” a technique that removes modern carbon that can contaminate ancient collagen in bones. Using the new method, lead researcher Dr. Rachel Wood, of Australian National University (ANU), and her colleagues tested 215 bones from 11 sites where previous radiocarbon dating had supported the later survival of Neanderthals. The study is published today (Feb. 4) in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). The team found the vast majority of the bones contained insufficient collagen to be successfully dated. But of those that could be tested, Wood and her colleagues found enough evidence that placed the earliest record to be about 50,000 years ago at two separate sites. Wood said the new evidence doesn’t completely exclude the possibility that Neanderthals lived until 35,000 years ago. Because radiocarbon testing couldn’t be accurately completed on many of the fossils, it’s possible some may have been from a later period. But for the two of the 11 sites examined, Wood says the evidence suggests Neanderthals died out 50,000 years ago. “It is improbable that the last Neanderthals of central and southern Iberia would have persisted until such a late date, approximately 30,000 years ago, as we thought before the new dates appeared” assured coauthor Jesús F. Jordá, researcher of the Department of Prehistory and Archaeology at UNED. Wood and her team said the new dating method puts the extinction at closer to 50,000 years, but may be as late as 45,000 years ago, still much earlier than when modern humans started arriving in the region. “The problem with radiocarbon dating alone is that it does not provide reliable dates older than 50,000 years” explained Jordá. An additional problem is contamination; the older the samples are the more residues are accumulated. If contaminants are not removed the obtained dates are incorrect. “The results of our study suggest that there are major problems with the dating of the last Neanderthals in modern-day Spain,” said coauthor Thomas Higham, deputy director of the Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit at Oxford University in England. “It is unlikely that Neanderthals survived any later in this area than they did elsewhere in mainland Europe.” Chris Stringer, a senior research fellow at Britain’s Natural History Museum, said traditional dating techniques often lead to older radiocarbon dates, but as the technology improves, science has to follow suit. He added that the new technique now needs to be applied to other sites in Spain. “Until this is done, there must be a significant question mark over the possible late survival of Neanderthals in the region,” Stringer, who was not involved in the new study, told the Associated Press. If other sites turn out to be older, then it is likely that encounters between Neanderthals and humans had to have taken place much earlier than previously believed, he added. “Evidence from Britain, Belgium, France, Germany and Italy is increasingly pointing to a modern human presence before 40,000 years ago,” said Stringer. “The new chronology suggests that any interaction between the last Neanderthals and the earliest moderns in Europe will similarly move before, rather than after, 40,000 years.” There is a chance that Neanderthals survived longer in other areas of Europe. “There are some other possible areas that may have also acted as a refuge for the species, such as the Caucasus, but the ‘young’ radiocarbon dates in these areas have also found to be problematic,” Wood acknowledged. Over the years scholars have been perplexed over disparities in the dates given to Neanderthal sites in north and south Iberia, and now the new evidence may explain why previous dating methods didn’t match up. Higham, who believes there was some overlap between early man and Neanderthals, said further work would be needed to confirm the findings. The new dating technique had applied the earlier extinction at the sites of Jarama VI and Zafarraya. Most of the other sites could not offer clear radiocarbon dating except for Cueva Anton (Murcia), which still provided recent dates in accordance with the popular theory that Neanderthals existed until 35,000 years ago. However, even at this site, the team said the remains are not clearly related to Neanderthals and more testing needs to occur. In light of the new evidence, Jordá explained that “prehistory books would need revision”, especially as new results become available. “Although it is still controversial to change the theory in force, the new concept, which presents new data indicating that Neanderthals and H. sapiens did not co-exist in Iberia, is becoming accepted” he added. Source: Lawrence LeBlond for redOrbit.com - Your Universe Online

The (Real) Origin of Species by Nuh (AS) - Not Darwin! "I (Noah) said, “Ask forgiveness of your Lord: He is ever forgiving. He will send down abundant rain from the sky for you; He will give you wealth and children; He will provide you with gardens and rivers. What is the matter with you? Why will you not fear God’s majesty, when He has created you stage by stage? Have you ever wondered how God created seven heavens, one above the other, placed the moon as a light in them and the sun as a lamp, how God made you spring forth from the earth like a plant, how He will return you into it and then bring you out again, and how He has spread the Earth out for you to walk along its spacious paths?”" [surah Nuh 71:10-20] Reflecting on some parts of this passage, Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi comments as follows: "Theme #6 - Man is created in stages. It is of no importance for the religious life what these stages refer to precisely, whether it is slow change over long eons of time, or abrupt shifts in some evolutionary process, as those who believe in evolution claim. For the religious life what is of importance is that the coming-to-be of a human being is a process through time, through experience , history, engagement with the natural and human world into which the individual is born and where he matures and, eventually, dies. The coming-to-be of a person is through time, through the effort of living and learning, of being nurtured and nurturing; it is a process of coming to know and experience, of awakening to the importance of being human, and the realisation that death is a stage, as birth was, as maturing was, as adulthood was and senility. The being created in stages means being created in a movement that is directed from one moment on to the next, from here to hereafter. Because this being created in stages is by God, it is a sign also of the minute, subtle and particular care that He has invested in His creation. Creation is not a careless thing, a matter of no importance, a meaningless repetition like mass-produced goods. Life is not to be wasted. For every life, its time is irreplaceable. No stage is permanent; that is the meaning of “stage”. We are always moved on within this world. (Death is a break, marked by “thumma”. What comes after death follows directly, as marked by “wa”.)" - Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi on Surah Nuh (Seminar Outline Notes) From time to time, philosophers and scientists have put forward propositions and theories with regards to the origins of species - the most significant being On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin published in 1859. Although Darwin claimed that it was purely scientific in nature, his theory has had enormous idealogical impact on religious, cultural, social, political and economic spheres. [You can read the article titled "Reflections on The Theory of Evolution as A Cultural Dogma" by Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi attached to this email]. Sadly Muslims have also been affected by this. Another important point that many of us don't realise is that no matter how good a theory seems the inferences made by that theory are based on Inductive Reasoning which by definition is probabilistic and can never be certain even if all the premises are true. So these theories can never be a source of belief. At best they are useful for understanding the natural world. "Now a scientific theory is not, or should not be promoted as, a matter susceptible to believing or not believing it. Ideally, a scientific theory is a tool of human thought which helps us to perceive, understand and explain elements and features of the natural world (including our bodily selves) that, otherwise, we could not even perceive clearly, let alone understand or explain. Like any tool a theory does its job for a while, and then is re-designed or an altogether different theory does the job more efficiently, more elegantly, more comprehensively. A theory can be of use, for scientific purposes, if it accurately explains something in part, or in some aspect of it, even if, in respect of other aspects of the same thing, it is useless, inaccurate, and leads to a dead end. The worth of a scientific theory, ideally, is dependent on its capacity to understand and explain the natural world in a way that opens up reality to continued effort to understand and explain it."- Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi on Evolution (full article attached) Therefore the real origin of species is what is explained by the Prophets and Messengers of Allah (SWT). Their explanations are deep and meaningful - not superficial like the scientific theories and explanations - they connect the origin to the purpose, the end and to what comes after - "... how God made you spring forth from the earth like a plant, how He will return you into it and then bring you out again". They speak based on revelation, certainty and truth - not assumptions, inferences, conjecture, speculation and induction, like the scientists and philosophers. "Most of them follow nothing but assumptions, but assumptions can be of no value at all against the Truth: God is well aware of what they do." [Qur’an 10:36] "If you obeyed most of those on earth, they would lead you away from the path of God. They follow nothing but speculation; they are merely guessing. Your Lord knows best who strays from His path and who is rightly guided." [Qur'an 6:116-117] The seminar coming up this Saturday on Surah Nuh is an essential opportunity to not only understand our origins but moreover, our real purpose and our end as well. This life-changing seminar is taught by one of the foremost scholars and thinkers of the Western world today - Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi of Oxford University. Surah Nuh - The Struggle of The Prophets The Magnificent Journey An Amazing Journey Through The Last Two Parts (Juzz Tabaarak and Juzz 'Amma) of the Qur'an, From Surah Al-Mulk to Surah An-Naas, by one of the foremost Islamic Scholars and Thinkers of the Western World today By Shaykh Dr Mohammad Akram Nadwi (Oxford University) Date: Saturday 26th January 2013 Time: 10AM - 6PM Venue: Cambridge University and Live Online Web Access http://courses.meoc.org.uk << Click Here To Register Written Testimonials: http://courses.meoc.org.uk/p/testimonials.html "Jazakumullah khair for the efforts of the MEOC for arranging these blessed gatherings of knowledge. The seminars I've attended so far have several elements that make them very special, starting from the choice of topics themselves which cater to the more profound needs of the people rather than addressing some superficial issues that seem to be more fashionable today. Even the content of the seminars and the manner of teaching by Shaikh Akram Nadwi are directly focussed towards developing a deeper understanding of these issues. In these seminars, one gets a glimpse of the years of learning that have gone into the brilliant scholarship of Shaikh Nadwi. Furthermore his knowledge seems to be blessed by an acute understanding of the needs of the Ummah. The seminar on the 'Legacy of Ibrahim (a.s.)' was exceptionally beautiful, wherein, the Shaikh in his own words confessed that he was attempting to transmit, not knowledge, but the state of his heart, to the others present. While the knowledge and the insight that one gains into the Qur'an, the Sunnah and the history of Muslims through these seminars is invaluable, I personally feel that these sessions are more than just one-day courses. I am inclined to call them gatherings of Remembrance of Allah, and we all know the blessings of such gatherings!" - Mohini Verma, PhD Student, Cambridge University "Of all the scholars I have had the opportunity to study with, I have found Shaikh Akram Nadwi to be the closest, in knowledge, manners and teaching, to how I would imagine some of the great Hadith scholars of the past would have been. He has a vast knowledge of Qur'an, Hadith and Fiqh, a down-to-earth, humble, approachable style, and great teaching ability. His classes are not just beneficial from a learning perspective, but also to marvel at the awe-inspiring wealth of knowledge of our scholars masha Allah. His 57 volume work going through the biographies of some 8,500 women scholars of Hadith is a monumental endeavour. The mere fact of its existence can be a major talking point in discussion with Muslims and non-Muslims, and is almost a stand-alone proof of Islam's unparalleled wealth of female scholarship." - Dr Omar Mahroo, London "I want to thank your organisation for arranging these series of lectures by Dr Nadwi. I have attended two of these lectures and have found them immensely enlightening. Dr Nadwi is a rare scholar of our times and although he is knowledgeable enough to talk at length on issues of philosophy, literacy or poetry, he is always keen to emphasise the practical implications of his teachings - that Islam in essence is a religion to be practiced with real actions and not confined to theory written in textbooks. MEOC has done an excellent job in the way they have taken care of all the details required of organising such events. I pray that Allah rewards all those involved in all aspects of these courses." - Dr Atiqul Baree, Portsmouth "The course by Shaykh Nadwi lived up to its billing and the course splendidly drove home just how crucial and relevant lessons from Ibrahim’s (as) life are to us today. Ibrahim's (as) life is not covered enough in Muslim circles or public discourse, which made the course very interesting. The stories of Ibrahim (as) particularly that of him and his two sons Ismail and Ishaq (as) are endlessly rich and fruitful and understanding them will go a long way in helping us make some sense of our reality. Shaykh Nadwi mashAllah demonstrated in-depth knowledge of Ibrahim's (as) story as narrated in the Quran and also the Biblical account as he taught us the Abrahamic foundations. His passion and the layout of the course were engaging and I left with a strong attachment to the 'intellectual & moral courage' of Ibrahim (as); a principle myself and every Muslim should be implementing in our lives.JazakAllahu Khair" - Mohamed Abdalla, Cambridge Video Testimonials: http://courses.meoc.org.uk/p/blog-page.html Seminar Highlights of Surah Al-Haqqah http://courses.meoc.org.uk << Click Here To Register Previous Posts Preview of Nuh (AS) Seminar - Gems from Shaykh Akram Nadwi The People of Nuh (AS) and the People Today - Same Idols But Modern Names The Big Debate: Nuh (AS) Vs Richard Dawkins - Coming Up Soon! SURAH NUH (NOAH) - THE STRUGGLE OF THE PROPHETS