Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wasif_akhtar

Help Me Prove This Evolution Theory Wrong

Recommended Posts

hey. im a 16 year old muslim and am having this debait about evolution with a friends (non-muslim.) i know all the facts about evolution and how it is false, but he constantly fights back with this piece of information:

 

Helacyton gartleri

 

 

There is one human being who is biologically immortal on a technicality, and her name is Henrietta Lacks. In 1951 she showed up at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, complaining of blood spotting in her underwear. Samples were taken of her cervical tissue and sent to a lab for analysis, which came back with a diagnosis of cervical cancer.

 

The cancer was caused by the Human papillomavirus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. Most variants of this virus are harmless, but some are known to cause cervical cancer, as in Henrietta's case. After her diagnosis and before attempts to treat the disease with radium, another sample from the tumor was sent to George Gey, who was the head of tissue culture research at Hopkins. Gey discovered that the cells from Henrietta's tumor would not only survive and multiply outside of her body, but they didn't age either. These cells were basically immortal.

 

And they're still alive, even though Henrietta herself died of the cancer on October 4th, 1951. Now, HeLa cells are about as common in biological research as the lab rat and the petri dish, and are still being grown in an unbroken lineage from the cells originally harvested from Mrs. Lacks in 1951. They're used in cancer research because a scientist can perform experiments on them that otherwise couldn't be done on a living human being. They were also used in the development of the Polio vaccine, making Henrietta somewhat of a posthumous hero to millions.

 

But say you're a scientist looking at HeLa cells under a microscope. They live independently of the body they came from. They reproduce (faster even than other cancerous cells). They consume, excrete, and do everything an independent living organism usually does. A thousand years from now there will still be HeLa cells multiplying and living, even some of the original cells sampled from Mrs. Lacks, even though Henrietta Lacks herself has long since passed away. Is this a new species?

 

That would make Helacyton gartleri an example of speciation, which is when a new species is observed developing from another. In this case, the development is from a chordate (homo sapien) to something that's more like an ameoba (a cross-phylum mutation), giving us an animal with a mostly human genotype, but which does not develop into a human-like phenotype. Since this event occurred in nature when the papillomavirus transformed Henrietta's cells, and not in the laboratory, it's a strong piece of evidence supporting Evolution (although not one that suggests you could go from an ameoba to a chordate, which would probably take more than one mutation)."

 

 

can some body please help me in proving that this is not a fact of evolution.

thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
hey. im a 16 year old muslim and am having this debait about evolution with a friends (non-muslim.) i know all the facts about evolution and how it is false, but he constantly fights back with this piece of information:

 

Helacyton gartleri

There is one human being who is biologically immortal on a technicality, and her name is Henrietta Lacks. In 1951 she showed up at John Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, complaining of blood spotting in her underwear. Samples were taken of her cervical tissue and sent to a lab for analysis, which came back with a diagnosis of cervical cancer.

 

The cancer was caused by the Human papillomavirus, which is a sexually transmitted disease. Most variants of this virus are harmless, but some are known to cause cervical cancer, as in Henrietta's case. After her diagnosis and before attempts to treat the disease with radium, another sample from the tumor was sent to George Gey, who was the head of tissue culture research at Hopkins. Gey discovered that the cells from Henrietta's tumor would not only survive and multiply outside of her body, but they didn't age either. These cells were basically immortal.

 

And they're still alive, even though Henrietta herself died of the cancer on October 4th, 1951. Now, HeLa cells are about as common in biological research as the lab rat and the petri dish, and are still being grown in an unbroken lineage from the cells originally harvested from Mrs. Lacks in 1951. They're used in cancer research because a scientist can perform experiments on them that otherwise couldn't be done on a living human being. They were also used in the development of the Polio vaccine, making Henrietta somewhat of a posthumous hero to millions.

 

But say you're a scientist looking at HeLa cells under a microscope. They live independently of the body they came from. They reproduce (faster even than other cancerous cells). They consume, excrete, and do everything an independent living organism usually does. A thousand years from now there will still be HeLa cells multiplying and living, even some of the original cells sampled from Mrs. Lacks, even though Henrietta Lacks herself has long since passed away. Is this a new species?

 

That would make Helacyton gartleri an example of speciation, which is when a new species is observed developing from another. In this case, the development is from a chordate (homo sapien) to something that's more like an ameoba (a cross-phylum mutation), giving us an animal with a mostly human genotype, but which does not develop into a human-like phenotype. Since this event occurred in nature when the papillomavirus transformed Henrietta's cells, and not in the laboratory, it's a strong piece of evidence supporting Evolution (although not one that suggests you could go from an ameoba to a chordate, which would probably take more than one mutation)."

can some body please help me in proving that this is not a fact of evolution.

thank you.

 

in this case it is a mutation of a virus which has caused this, in this case the virus infecting the womans genes, caused cancer, now, since cancer cells will constantly reproduce (the problem is keeping them from reproduceing) you will be able to grow tissue from it, and in a pitri dish you are feeding it, now, i wouldnt say that about the polio vaccine, as it is believed the polio vaccine that gave way to aids was developed from ape livers infected with SIV, (the ape version of aids) may people who now have cervical cancer and had polio innoculations could have cervical cancer because of it. what happend was that the human cells were taken over by a virus and turned into virus cells in the normal progression of the virus, and mutated into something new, and is still multiplying, but because it is multiplying asexualy, and not infecting anything, its not changeing, and can be used in lab experemints. she is not immortal because the original mother cell has died, all we have now are the daughter cells, not originals. we have a virus that has bits of a persons dna in it, and acts like cancer, so we can treat it like cancer. its essentialy a cross between a virus, and a human cell, which is possible, and in any event that dosent have anything to do with evolution, because it is being kept alive by humans, and nature had no part in it, so if humans stop cultivating it, the cells will die off. unless they mutate with another virus, and become stronger, in which case its survival of the fittest and is evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um....no....if you want to prove evolution wrong start by trying to prove that insects do not become immune over time to the chemicals we use to kill them. Dismissing evolution amongst insects is just plain ignorance as it is within insects that it is most noticable due to their fast reproduction.

 

P.S. Don't even think about trying to attack evolution amongst viruses. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

also if humans evolved from monkeys in Africa then why are there still monkeys there??? why in the world did they not evolve!

 

w/salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, you sound like theres an "evolve on demand button".

 

noxious, tell me what you sincelerly believe evolution is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HeLa cells? I mean prove me if I am wrong but I think that this is just another ## post left by another one poster trying to stir up muslims...I don't think we will hear from him again.

 

Salamu Alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

also if humans evolved from monkeys in Africa then why are there still monkeys there??? why in the world did they not evolve!

 

w/salaam

 

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Evolution does not even try and suggest this.

 

Evolution, however, does say that Humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. This is a completely accepted and very well documented fact.

 

 

wasif_akhtar,

 

As for your problem with the immortal cells, you're going to unfortunately have to accept that it is possible for cells to mutate and to become "biologically immortal". In this case, it seems that the telomerase has become robust in some way such that the cells do not degrade like normal cells.

 

I am curious, how do you "know all the facts about evolution and how it is false", and yet need to ask this question? Why are you so certain that evolution is not the mechanism by which the Creator created all species on our planet? Is there anything that is suggested by evolution that goes against your worldview or beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

also if humans evolved from monkeys in Africa then why are there still monkeys there??? why in the world did they not evolve!

 

w/salaam

they arent, all our ancestors who linked us to apes (not monkeys) are dead. they died out a long time ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans did evolve from monkeys apes or whatever, saying that "MONKEYS DIDNT EVOLVE THEREFORE WE CANT HAVE EVOLVED FROM THEM!" thats like saying "SHARKS EVOLVED FROM SMALLER FISH THEREFORE IT CANT BE RIGHT AS THERE ARE STILL SMALL FISH!"

 

The evolution theroy outweighs every other theory in every aspect of it, basing a theory on one book is like saying that hitler was actually black because someone on some random website says so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most important thing when discussing evolution: pick your battles well. There's a lot of stuff that is considered part of evolution but actually isn't. Some parts are proven right, some parts are very doubtfull. It's important to set out your goals (what do you try to disprove) from the beginning. Here's some explenations to avoid confusion.

 

Mutation: When an ofspring, due to a malfunctioning has difrent DNA, which causes it to have difrent charesteristics then it's parents. (this is proven to have happened)

 

Natural selection: The idea that such ofsprings, when their new charesteristic is an advantage, will eventually take over the population trough generations as weaker ones will die faster.(this is very logical)

 

Evolution: The theory that Mutation + natural selection = variety in species. Note that this is not a purpose minded proces according to classical evolution. A mutation is always accedential. And the proces of natural selection only steps in afterwards, when the creature already evolved. The idea that creatures evolve out of adaptation is a misconception. Adaptation is a whoel difrent thing, it's a special part of natural selection, it does not influence the mutations that occur.

 

Common descent: Some peopel claim that this isn't actually a part of the evolution theory, but it's usually asumed as being part of it. This is the theory that since some creatures evolve out of one another, it s likely that all evolved out of a single one. this one I fail to accept, there's a whole lot of holes in this theory that i 'd like to see filled up before accepting this.

 

Abiogenesis: This is the first link. Evolution speculates how animels evolved once they existed. This theory tells us how they came in existence. Wel actually it's hardly a theory. Again, a lot of gaps here.

 

So you should focus on abiogenesis and common descent, keep that in mind. When the discussion leads to mutation, natural selection, don't be afraid to say "you're right". there's no point in debating the bleeding obvious simply because it's correlated with shady theorys. In fact these parts of the theory are certain. So instead of waisting energy on them, stick to where the theory goes wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ought to point out that although the initial creation of HeLa cells is a convincing piece of evidence to support evolution, what is more convincing is that the cells have differentiated to many different strains(its not just one new species, its many many new species). In the 50 years that we've had to study them we can actually see evolution in progress(which is obviously very difficult with anything else. Even fruit flies, with their high rate of reproduction, would take years to 'evolve' significantly.

 

Ofcourse, a much more simple, everyday example is the evolution of bacteria. Strains come along, we find drugs to fight them, they evolve into a new strain that isn't susceptible to that drug. It happens all the time.

 

You could argue that HeLa cells are not a 'new species' because they can't exist in nature, we have to feed them. But strictly speaking, an organisms 'natural environment' is quite simply whatever is around it. Pigeons live in cities and there wouldn't be so many there if the city weren't there. Does this mean that they are not a species?

The HeLa cells natural environment is a lab, and we don't even have to 'feed' them. HeLa are a sort of 'lab pest' since they reproduce so prolificly without ageing. They're always finding their way into cultures of other things and messing up the whole experiment. So, their environment is a modern one, but does that mean they're not a species?

 

If you're going to debate about evolution then you shouldn't base your argument on the basics of evolution, such as natural selection. It's very difficult to find a flaw in. If I had to argue against evolution, I'd base my argument on the exact path through which natural selection occurs: the mutation of DNA. Basically you need to figure out how often and how quickly mutations happen, estimate how long it would take for one species to evolve into another, and compare this figure with and estimate of the time that it did take from the fossil record.

But you'd still be on a hiding to nothing. There are many different theories on exactly how DNA mutates.

 

I'd be very interested to know, what 'facts' do you know about evolution and why do you think it is false? If it being 'false' is one of the 'facts' that you have been taught, then there isn't a lot of point in you debating about it.

~Peace

~RN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know all the facts about evolution and how it is false

 

 

I'm sorry?!

 

You claim to know all the facts about evolution; you then claim that evolution is false?!

 

 

Well, clearly then you know absolutely nothing of the theory.

 

This is the problem with all religious people. I have NEVER encountered a single religious person, who is highly familiar with evolution.

 

Evolution is as good as fact in the science community, and if you knew anything about it, then you would realise that it is not absurd at all.

 

Read the book that I've named my username after;

 

"The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins (The worlds leading Biological Evolutionist).

 

And while you're at it, checkout "The God Dillusion" (also by Richard Dawkins).

 

If you do not, then you are living in denial.

 

I do not believe in God, yet I still have the respect and intelligence to at least research religion, and find out what it's about, before I just neglect the possibility of it being true.

 

 

You're ignorant. Very ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the biggest mistakes theists make when considering evolution is that it is always changing. As we gain knowledge, we adjust the theory to account for our discoveries. The theory of evolution has undergone many changes since it was first proposed. This is something many theists have difficulty grasping. Their religion is rigid, unchanging and theists compare evolution to their religion. Evolution is not a religion. It is not rigid, but flexible. I changes as our knowledge increases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's so flexible about the never ending search for evidence to fit the theory?It's just a theory,and no more believable than religious belief.The blind are leading the blind.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LeicesterFreeThinker, as Remirol Nacnud said, I don't think you understand the scientific process. Yes, a scientist starts with a theory to and searches for evidence to prove that theory. However, if the scientist finds evidence that show inconsistencies in the theory, he/she should make the proper adjustments to the theory.

 

Yes, there are scientists that are just as rigid as theists, but these are a minority. In the end, they are always exposed as frauds (ie. Piltdown man). The truth always comes out, in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:D

 

also if humans evolved from monkeys in Africa then why are there still monkeys there??? why in the world did they not evolve!

 

w/salaam

 

The humans transformed into monkeys :D

 

Animals can adapt to the environment. This does not prove the evolution theory in my opinion, which does not include God as the creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The evolution theory does not include God as the creator is what I meant. God is the creator.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution via natural selection enables the fittest to survive and makes perfect sense. Furthermore, the theory can be seen to be compatible with religious throught too.

 

Most people who deem evolution to be wrong don't even understand the basics of the theory. Open your eyes: there is evidence of evolution all around us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

evolution in the sense of natural selection then ofcourse it is true.God almighty is the one who has caused and willed it.there are lots and lots of signs of this evolution-but 'evolution' in the sense of humans and monkeys and all the other animals having the same ancestor is wrong-bigtime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace haw-wa,

 

evolution in the sense of natural selection then ofcourse it is true.God almighty is the one who has caused and willed it.there are lots and lots of signs of this evolution-but 'evolution' in the sense of humans and monkeys and all the other animals having the same ancestor is wrong-bigtime

 

Could you express in your own words what you think the long term (1 million+ years) affect of this 'natural selection' is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace haw-wa,

Could you express in your own words what you think the long term (1 million+ years) affect of this 'natural selection' is?

 

Peace Eoin

It means that the most fittest to survive in the environment will survive.'natural selection' is a name given to this process by humans.most fitter organisms will survive.and eventually eliminate the less fitter ones from the environment.this is necessary for the organisms to continue surviving in the growing harshness of the earth's environment.this is the long term effect.

 

it doesnot necessarily have to evolve in to a new organism in order to survive.for example in deserts cactus which has less extended root system has a lesser chance to survive when compared with cactus with extended root system.after a million + years you may only find these cactus with extended root systems.this is natural selection.this 'new' cactus doesnot necessarily have to be a new species.if extended root system is caused due to a dominant allele, then the other is caused due to the recessive allele.this doesnot mean that they will not be able to interbreed to produce a fertile offspring.

 

this doesnot lead all the organisms to have a single common ancestor in begining .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peace haw-wa,

Could you express in your own words what you think the long term (1 million+ years) affect of this 'natural selection' is?

 

Peace Eoin

i hope you have understood!!! :sl:

Edited by haw_wa

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


×