Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wasif_akhtar

Help Me Prove This Evolution Theory Wrong

Recommended Posts

Peace haw_wa,

 

i hope you have understood!!!

 

I understand what you're saying, thank you. :sl:

 

I presume you are familiar with the knowledge that from time to time, copying errors in the DNA of all living species (called mutations) occur. It is these copying errors which alter the way organisms develop and lead to new alleles which did not exist in previous generations of the species. I assume you have no argument with the fact that these mutations exist - indeed it can be demonstrated that the average human being has around 50-100 mutations in their DNA which neither of their parents have. Do we still agree on everything up to this point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Can some misguided person called an "evolutionist" explain this. I am going to give some reasons why the earth could not support life over more than 10,000 years ago. 1- The Sun. The sun is shrinking by 3 feet every year from the use of hydrogen and helium. If you go back 500,000,000 years, the earth is engulfed by the surace of the sun. How could dinosours and such survive with the sun around the earth? 2- The Moon. The moon is drifting away from the earth by 3 inches every year. If you go back 7,000,000 years the moon would be scraping the surface of the earth. How could anything survive with a 250,000,000,000 ton piece of rock dragging across the surface of the earth? 3- The Earth. The polar magnetivity of the earth decreases by 7% every year. If you go back 10,000 years the magnetivity of the earth would be so powerful that the earth would implode. How could any life whatsoever live and survive on an imploded earth? You can say whatever you want but you can't disprove facts that come straight from science textbooks, but you can try if you want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace hotguy,

 

I am going to give some reasons why the earth could not support life over more than 10,000 years ago. 1- The Sun. The sun is shrinking by 3 feet every year from the use of hydrogen and helium. If you go back 500,000,000 years, the earth is engulfed by the surace of the sun. How could dinosours and such survive with the sun around the earth?
Firstly you'd have to provide some backup to your claim that the sun is indeed shrinking by 3 feet every year. To avoid any unwarranted evidence being provided please read (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetasa3(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/aSA/PSCF/1986/PSCF9-86VanTill.html"]The Legend of the Shrinking Sun[/url]. To summarise the point, the argument you are positing is based on a report by two astronomers, Eddy and Boornazian called the, "Secular Decrease in the Solar Diameter, 1836-1953." By their calculations the sun shrank by 5 feet an hour throughout this period. More recent research has demonstrated that the suns diameter oscillates, that is to say that it contracts and expands in 80 year cycles - so while it may have decreased during the period in question it has expanded since. For an in depth analysis please see the article.

 

2- The Moon. The moon is drifting away from the earth by 3 inches every year. If you go back 7,000,000 years the moon would be scraping the surface of the earth. How could anything survive with a 250,000,000,000 ton piece of rock dragging across the surface of the earth?

 

I have developed on this forum a dislike of people who respond to queries by linking to articles without trying to give a summary of what is incorrect about the assertion they are grappling with. Nobody learns anything and things boil down to 'my scientist is better than yours' style arguments. In this case however I have little scope for explanation because try as I might I do not know nearly enough about astrophysics to explain fully in my own words why your assertion is incorrect. As I understand it this article (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yettalkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/faqs/moonrec.html"]here[/url] explains that the moons recession is not linear. I.e. The moon does not drift away from earth at the same rate every year, the rate of drift increases exponentially. Therefore (e.g.) a billion years ago the moons drift per year was near irrelevant by comparison with the present day.

 

3- The Earth. The polar magnetivity of the earth decreases by 7% every year. If you go back 10,000 years the magnetivity of the earth would be so powerful that the earth would implode. How could any life whatsoever live and survive on an imploded earth?

 

This has me confused. I've never heard of 'polar magnetivity' and I'm confused as to how in those circumstances it could be measured as having decreased? Is it possible you mean polar magnetism and if so could you provide some kind of evidence that shows this magnetism decreasing by 7% per year? Additionally you would have to show that the earths polar magnetism has been decreasing by 7% every year throughout earth history as well otherwise your claim amounts to nothing.

 

Eoin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace haw_wa,

I understand what you're saying, thank you. :sl:

 

I presume you are familiar with the knowledge that from time to time, copying errors in the DNA of all living species (called mutations) occur. It is these copying errors which alter the way organisms develop and lead to new alleles which did not exist in previous generations of the species. I assume you have no argument with the fact that these mutations exist - indeed it can be demonstrated that the average human being has around 50-100 mutations in their DNA which neither of their parents have. Do we still agree on everything up to this point?

 

i agree that mutations do exist.but is this enough for all the different species of organisms that exist today to be evolved from a single ancestor?i dont think so

 

some kind of mutations in the gametes of humans lead to genetically inherited diseases like downs syndrome.

some lead to death.these are just a few

 

what about point mutation on the skin like - that lead to skin cancer.

 

most of these are not good.so how can mutations lead to evolution of the vast species of organisms toexist frm a single ancestor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace haw_wa,

 

some kind of mutations in the gametes of humans lead to genetically inherited diseases like downs syndrome.

some lead to death.these are just a few

Some mutations have negative affects, most have neutral affects and some have positive affects. The environment in which the organism inhabits determines which of these are going to be negative, neutral or positive. For example about 30,000 years ago a mutation gave rise to lactose tolerance in a Northern European. This could be deemed a 'positive' mutation as it permitted a massive increase in potential nutritional intake for those humans which carried the new allele. However if the first human to carry this new gene had lived somewhere that there were no cattle the affect of the mutation would have been neutral as it would not either benefit or detriment the population in any way.

 

As I said earlier, you personally have between 50 and 100 genetic mutations in your own body. Most of those mutations will have occured in the 97% of your DNA which is redundant (known as junk DNA) and these mutations will have had no perceivable affect on your bodies development. Some of those mutations though are likely to have occured in parts of your DNA that do influence your development, however it would be very difficult for an individual to actually notice them as most of these will have neutral affects. However when thinking about evolution it is better to think about why looking at your own body is probably not a good idea. In the case of lactose tolerance it took about 15,000 years for the gene to spread among practically all Northern Europeans and there were certainly no more than 50 million people living there at the time. However we evolved from much simpler organisms which were far more numerous and far more susceptible to any advantage or disadvantages in their genetic makeup.

 

If you have 8 trillion individual bacteria with a life cycle of 25 days living in a primeval pond, almost every genetic mutation which occurs within those bacteria will have a godsmackingly large impact on the development of those bacteria and their future generations. Even if only one individual bacteria cell in every trillion bacteria cells had a positive genetic mutation, with a life cycle of 25 days that positive mutation could easily have spread through a population very quickly.

 

most of these are not good.so how can mutations lead to evolution of the vast species of organisms toexist frm a single ancestor

 

Most mutations are neutral. The mutations you mentioned are indeed negative, however you mentioned about 3 out of several thousand million if not trillion mutations which have occured throughout the last few million years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moon is drifting away from the earth by 3 inches every year. If you go back 7,000,000 years the moon would be scraping the surface of the earth. How could anything survive with a 250,000,000,000 ton piece of rock dragging across the surface of the earth?

Your facts are incorrect and your math is incorrect.

 

The moon is currently drifting away from the earth at a rate of about 4 cm/year, which is more like 1.5 inches than 3 inches. Even if we assume 3 inches per year, simple multiplication tells us that 3 inches/year times 7,000,000 years is 21,000,000 inches. Since the moon is 240 thousand miles from earth today, 21 million inches (about 330 miles) closer wouldn't have been much of a threat.

 

What if we take the current estimate for the age of the moon (4.5 billion years) and use your 3 inch/year theory? Assuming the rate at which the moon receded was constant for the past 4.5 billion years, we come up with a moon that would have been 215,000 miles closer then than it is now. That would still have put it 25,000 miles from "dragging across the surface of the earth." If we substitute the more accurate 1.5 inches for the rate at which the moon is receding today (as measured by the laser reflectors left behind during manned moon landings), we get a moon that was still over 100,000 miles from earth 4.5 billion years ago. And that's before we even factor in the evidence that the rate at which the moon is receding today is faster than it was in the past.

 

If you'd like to challenge evolution, it's probably best to avoid painting yourself into corners such as the one that claims the earth is less than 10,000 years old. There is just too much evidence that the earth is many times more ancient.

 

 

The polar magnetivity of the earth decreases by 7% every year. If you go back 10,000 years the magnetivity of the earth would be so powerful that the earth would implode.

Huh?

 

The magnetic field strength of the earth's magnetic poles has decreased about 5% TOTAL over the past 150 years, since it was first measured in 1835 by Gauss. More importantly, though, there is strong evidence that the magnetic poles actually flip periodically, from north to south and from south to north.

 

There is a mountain range in the middle of the Atlantic ocean, called the Mid Atlantic Ridge, which mimics the shape of the eastern coastline of South America and the western coastline of Africa, and is essentially midway between the two. It is the place where the conveyor belt of plate tectonics rises from deep in the earth, as though "pushing" Africa and South America apart at the rate of about 1 cm per year (about the rate at which your fingernails grow). Long before the theory of plate tectonics became accepted, people had noticed the similarity of the shape of the coastlines themselves, as well as the similarities in the distribution of plants and animals along those widely-separated coastlines.

 

As these 2 continents move apart, the gap between them is filled by material (in the form of volcanic eruptions) welling up from the earth's interior along the Mid Atlantic Ridge. When lava cools, the magnetic field of the resulting rocks reflects the polarity of the earth at that time. Two very interesting facts emerge.

 

The age of the bedrock along the ocean floor is older the farther you get away from the Mid Atlantic Ridge. Right at the Mid Atlantic Ridge, the rocks are from our own time, and they become older as you travel east and west from the ridge in a mirror image of each other. The measured magnetism also flips back and forth as one travels away from the ridge. These magnetic stripes are also mirror images of each other on each side of the ridge. This provides compelling evidence that Africa and South America have been moving apart for well over 100 million years, which pretty much blows "young earth creationism" out of the water.

 

The fossil record for Africa and South America provides even more support for this chronology. Nothing about the fossil record can be reconciled with a 10,000-year-old earth. Your arguments against evolution will never be strong as long as they're dependent on proving a "young earth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, Explain this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a scientific law, not a theory, which means that it has been proven over thousands of experiments) states that -- Everything, if left alone, gradually grows more disorderly. Evolution says that things changed over time and got better. So how can a theory overule a scientific law?

Even allowing for a universal drift towards entropy, as long as an imbalance of energy exists, it can be converted, allowing simple organisms to develop more complex structures. Whether the apatosaurus is 'better' than the amoeba, or the amoeba is 'better' than the estate agent, is a value judgement, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can some misguided person called an "evolutionist" explain this. I am going to give some reasons why the earth could not support life over more than 10,000 years ago. 1- The Sun. The sun is shrinking by 3 feet every year from the use of hydrogen and helium. If you go back 500,000,000 years, the earth is engulfed by the surace of the sun. How could dinosours and such survive with the sun around the earth? 2- The Moon. The moon is drifting away from the earth by 3 inches every year. If you go back 7,000,000 years the moon would be scraping the surface of the earth. How could anything survive with a 250,000,000,000 ton piece of rock dragging across the surface of the earth? 3- The Earth. The polar magnetivity of the earth decreases by 7% every year. If you go back 10,000 years the magnetivity of the earth would be so powerful that the earth would implode. How could any life whatsoever live and survive on an imploded earth? You can say whatever you want but you can't disprove facts that come straight from science textbooks, but you can try if you want.

I can't say I am 'misguided', but I'll try. Everything you've claimed seems based on extrapolation. If you saw someone fall past by your third floor window, you would hardly assume that they had been falling for thousands of years, and started from Mars. There is a theory that the moon was created when a Mars-like planetoid inpacted with the early earth, and what became the moon was thrown out. A somewhat more severe event than 'scraping the surface'. Even if this didn't happen, the moon's drift away from earth would accelerate as the gravity between them grew weaker.

 

The change in the polar magnetic strength is more likely to indicate a coming reversal of the poles than 10,000 years of weakening strength, as Bokanon suggested.

 

That sun thing just isn't proved at all, I'm afraid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange, but I can't see this thread on the first 'Islam & Science' page, even though there are topics there that are older, so it can't have just dropped onto page 2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Evolution" has its own space in the "Islam and Science" section. Maybe that makes it easier to overlook, or maybe no one is interested in going over old ground again, because it doesn't look like there's anyone reading it except you and me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, Explain this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a scientific law, not a theory, which means that it has been proven over thousands of experiments) states that -- Everything, if left alone, gradually grows more disorderly. Evolution says that things changed over time and got better. So how can a theory overule a scientific law?

 

because these two elements are separate.

 

newton based his theories (even laws are still theories btw, the term "law" in scientific terms is more like english common law that can still be adapted, rather than shariah which is divinely revealed and permanent) almost purely upon the material world, where indeed the 2nd thermodynamic law seems to hold very well. But life itself is also on non-material levels, it has consciousness, and more importantly it allows simpler forms to develop into more complex ones.

 

this is still argued over in scientific circles, fundamentalist materialists claim that the process of life is still within the 2nd law, whereas less reactionary scientists can accept that the 2nd law does not refer to *everything*, and that specifically life itself is a anti-entropic system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Evolution" has its own space in the "Islam and Science" section. Maybe that makes it easier to overlook, or maybe no one is interested in going over old ground again, because it doesn't look like there's anyone reading it except you and me.

Thanks for pointing that out, I didn't realise that 'evolution' had been singled out for special interest. Had a little wander through the threads and that one started by Taoist was quite depressing, mostly the third page. Shlommi Lesser...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HeHe, Schlomo...

 

I have found that people who oppose evolution in toto are generally not well-grounded in science. They may only lack knowledge of facts, as in the case of the drive-by "second law of thermodynamics" challenger. Or, as in the case of the 90-foot Edenites, they may be deficient in the spirit of skeptical inquiry itself, which underpins all of science. When you begin from a position that Adam and Eve is a literal account, and any science which appears to contradict that story must be mistaken, you end up rejecting quite a bit of modern learning.

 

Fortunately, the blessings of technology which that learning has provided are available to all, without requiring anyone to believe in the science, just as the sun shines on all men whether or not they believe in its creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_video.google(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/videoplay?docid=958178979725413796"]Unlocking the Mystery of Life[/url]

 

Its a good documentary :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam.

 

Who's to say that evolution does not exist? Isn't Allah all knowing, all wise, and is able to do whatsoever he pleases? Isn't it amazing how through the titter patter of time things started to shape itself into forms that accents it's surroundings. It is nothing more than a mercy from Allah. As for Adam and Eve, who knows. I just know that they were casted out of heaven for their disobedience along with Iblis. I do not know the transportation method, but we cannot rule out the possibilities. Their souls more than likely would have been transported to earth because the bodies that they had in paradise would be far superior than that of any earthly creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

peace,

 

When the largest industry in the world is no longer War, I will accept Darwin's theory of Evolution.

 

~Dale S. Mugford

 

:sl:

 

peace and love :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think you quite understand the scientific process. Ofcourse once you have a theory you try to find evidence to support it, but scientists also struggle to find evidence that disproves the theory. Once you disprove a theory, it causes you to start again or modify your theory. Thats the basic way that science advances.

 

Saying that all evolutionists are just searching for 'evidence to fit the theory' is a gross simplification.

~RN

 

Not Quite, first you have evidence, then you test it robustly, then after this proves to be true THEN you can develop a theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, Explain this. The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a scientific law, not a theory, which means that it has been proven over thousands of experiments) states that -- Everything, if left alone, gradually grows more disorderly. Evolution says that things changed over time and got better. So how can a theory overule a scientific law?

 

You dont seem to understand what a scientific theory is. It is a collection of facts which are then formed into a cogent assumption which are then tested thoroughly, found to be true, then and only then can they be considered a scientific theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Second Law of Thermodynamics (which is a law, not a theory, unlike the theory of evolution) states that: Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly. Evolution teaches that everything got better over millions of years and things still are getting better. So my question to evolutionists is: How does a theory overrule a scientific law that has been proven, unlike the thoery.

 

 

You dont seem to understand what a scientific theory is. It is a collection of facts which are then formed into a cogent assumption which are then tested thoroughly, found to be true, then and only then can they be considered a scientific theory.

 

Doesn't seem to understand thermodynamics, either. The 2nd law doesn't state that " Everything, if left alone, grows more disorderly.", it states that all energy in a closed system will transfer energy to reach an equilibrium. >_<

 

Nothing to do with order, or being left alone, or any of that nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×