Jump to content
Islamic Forum
beklemede

did we come from monkeys

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

So if we did all come from Adam and Eve then Allah condones incest? After all there was no1 else for Adam and Eve and there offspring to mate with.

 

And is 2 ppl enough to create varied enough DNA pool to allow the population we see today? i dont think so.

 

How can this be explained?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if we did all come from Adam and Eve then Allah condones incest? After all there was no1 else for Adam and Eve and there offspring to mate with.

 

And is 2 ppl enough to create  varied enough DNA pool to allow the population we see today? i dont think so.

 

How can this be explained?

 

 

Your point about the DNA pool is a good one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think that it is impossible for 2 indiviuals to create such a varied DNA pool then the whole evolving from monkeys idea is flawed too. Like i said before...why are there still monkeys? Why is the sky blue? Our minds are limited, science can explain only upto what we understand with the limited knowledge we have.

 

These DNA changes can occur through the climates we live in and what not...some people are darker than others, some hairier than others...were different. CHANGE yes, evolution from a totally different species,no.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

Those who do not believe... It's only them who think this way.

 

For us believers we cannot say that Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus or Muhammad (to name some of the Prophets, peace be upon them all) back then were some monkeys.

 

And I would have closed this thread from the non-sense comments.

Edited by amd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"For us believers we cannot say that Adam, or Noah, or Abraham, or Moses, or Jesus or Muhammad (to name some of the Prophets, peace be upon them all) back then were some monkeys."

 

I dont believe any is calling them monkeys, we need 2 look a lot further back in time b4 any prophets.

 

In fact i was wondering, according to the Qu'ran how long have humans been on the earth?

 

"If we came from monkeys,then how comes there are still monkeys around?!"

 

Despite the title of this topic no1 is claming we came from monkeys, it is believed we have a common ancester. Monkeys would have continued 2 evolve in2 wot we see 2day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam was the first human, he was also the first prophet. Adam was not a monkey or ape, other humans came from Adam. Therefore, humans did not come from monkeys or apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Myth of Homology

 

Structural similarities between different species are called "homology" in biology. Evolutionists try to present those similarities as evidence for evolution.

 

Darwin thought that creatures with similar (homologous) organs had an evolutionary relationship with each other, and that these organs must have been inherited from a common ancestor. According to his assumption, both pigeons and eagles had wings; therefore, pigeons, eagles, and indeed all other birds with wings were supposed to have evolved from a common ancestor.

 

Homology is a deceptive argument, advanced on the basis of no other evidence than an apparent physical resemblance. This argument has never once been verified by a single concrete discovery in all the years since Darwin's day. Nowhere in the world has anyone come up with a fossil remain of the imaginary common ancestor of creatures with homologous structures. Furthermore, the following issues make it clear that homology provides no evidence that evolution ever occurred.

 

1. One finds homologous organs in creatures belonging to completely different phyla, among which evolutionists have not been able to establish any sort of evolutionary relationship;

 

2. The genetic codes of some creatures that have homologous organs are completely different from one another.

 

3. The embryological development of homologous organs in different creatures is completely different.

 

Let us now examine each of these points one by one.

 

 

Similar Organs in Entirely Different Living Species

 

There are a number of homologous organs shared by different groups among which evolutionists cannot establish any kind of evolutionary relationship. Wings are one example. In addition to birds, we find wings on bats, which are mammals, and on insects and even on some dinosaurs, which are extinct reptiles. Not even evolutionists posit an evolutionary relationship or kinship among those four different groups of animals.

 

Another striking example is the amazing resemblance and the structural similarity observed in the eyes of different creatures. For example, the octopus and man are two extremely different species, between which no evolutionary relationship is likely even to be proposed, yet the eyes of both are very much alike in terms of their structure and function. Not even evolutionists try to account for the similarity of the eyes of the octopus and man by positing a common ancestor. These and numerous other examples show that the evolutionist claim based on resemblances is completely unscientific.

 

In fact, homologous organs should be a great embarrassment for evolutionists. The famous evolutionist Frank Salisbury's confessions revealed in his statements on how extremely different creatures came to have very similar eyes underscores the impasse of homology:

 

Even something as complex as the eye has appeared several times; for example, in the squid, the vertebrates, and the arthropods. It's bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern synthetic theory makes my head swim.164

 

There are many creatures which, despite their very similar physical make-up, do not permit any claims of evolutionary relationship. Two large mammal categories, placentals and marsupials, are an example. Evolutionists consider this distinction to have come about when mammals first appeared, and that each group lived its own evolutionary history totally independent of the other. But it is interesting that there are "pairs" in placentals and marsupials which are nearly the same. The American biologists Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis make the following comment:

 

According to Darwinian theory, the pattern for wolves, cats, squirrels, ground hogs, anteaters, moles, and mice each evolved twice: once in placental mammals and again, totally independently, in marsupials. This amounts to the astonishing claim that a random, undirected process of mutation and natural selection somehow hit upon identical features several times in widely separated organisms.165

 

Extraordinary resemblances and similar organs like these, which evolutionist biologists cannot accept as examples of "homology," show that there is no evidence for the thesis of evolution from a common ancestor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×