Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

Darwinism Refuted

Recommended Posts

PropellerAds

You don't get to be a doctor without knowing how bacteria evolve. There are many Muslim doctors. You don't get to be a genetecist, biologist, zoologist, veterinarian without knowing that evolution is the best explanation for how things got to be as the are. There are many Muslim genetecists, biologists, zoologists, veterinarians. Not sure why this article is in the 'Refuting Non Muslims' section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacteria doesn't evolve. It was long proven that, in a completely sealed environment, bacteria cannot develop.

Since mediaeval times, spontaneous generation, the theory that non-living matter could come together to form living organisms, had been widely accepted. It was believed that insects came into existence from leftover bits of food. It was further imagined that mice came into being from wheat. Interesting experiments were conducted to prove this theory. Some wheat was placed on a dirty piece of cloth, and it was believed that mice would emerge in due course.

 

Similarly, the fact that maggots appeared in meat was believed to be evidence for spontaneous generation. However, it was only realized some time later that maggots did not appear in meat spontaneously, but were carried by flies in the form of larvae, invisible to the naked eye.

 

Even in the period when Darwin's Origin of Species was written, the belief that bacteria could come into existence from inanimate matter was widespread.

 

However, five years after the publication of Darwin's book, Louis Pasteur announced his results after long studies and experiments, which disproved spontaneous generation, a cornerstone of Darwin's theory. In his triumphal lecture at the Sorbonne in 1864, Pasteur said, "Never will the doctrine of spontaneous generation recover from the mortal blow struck by this simple experiment."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bacteria evolves from one sort of bacteria to another.

 

Darwinism says nothing about how life first appeared on this planet, it is about how life evolves. 'Evolves' means changes, not comes into being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacteria evolves from one sort of bacteria to another.

 

Darwinism says nothing about how life first appeared on this planet, it is about how life evolves. 'Evolves' means changes, not comes into being.

Sure there are variety between species, but there is no evidence proving organisms can change from one species to a completely different species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is sufficient evidence to convince the vast majority of scientists qualified in the relevant fields that evolution is the theory that best fits the facts. That is undeniable. If you think that all these scientists are mistaken or lieing, you really need to come up with some evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok.then can you name a few of these evidences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The simplest thing for you to do is to type 'evolution' into Wiki. I'm sure they have a good article.

 

My point is that the vast majority - probably very nearly 100% - of people qualified in fields affected by the theory of evolution, accept that evolution is the best explanation to fit the facts. science is hugely competitive. If there was any fundamental flaw in the theory it would have been discovered, studied and accepted. It hasn't been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry dot but evolution is quite real. Bacterial/Viral resistance to drugs, carnivorous deer in response to a nutrient deficiency in the local plants, dinosaurs going from being reptiles to being birds (proven by the ability to reverse this process), ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i must say.evolution to some extent makes sense. for example the survival of the fittest part.but when it says that life on earth, including the complex organisms have the same ancestor then we have a problem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might have a relgious problem, but there's no scientific problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but there is not sufficient proof of species changing to others there is proof of variation among species though, but that is not the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry but there is not sufficient proof of species changing to others there is proof of variation among species though, but that is not the same.

 

Yes it is. Take small changes in large enough quantities and you get a big change. And yes there is evidence, see my reptile to bird example.

Edited by David M.K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes it is. Take small changes in large enough quantities and you get a big change. And yes there is evidence, see my reptile to bird example.

What would occur to make a reptile sprout wing like organs to fly, when those wings would not work unless they are exact for flying, sure thy could have evolved wing-like limbs but that would only be a hindering mutation which would not survive to pass down, and even if it passes down you would need another mutation to make it even more capable of flying which would be inferior to say a reptile having a mutation suited to ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Random mutation is what would "make" a reptile develop webbing between some limbs. Gliding is an advantage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if you are so sure that one species can change in to other by random mutation then why dont you name a few species with proof that they have been mutated like that?

You might have a relgious problem, but there's no scientific problem.

yes we have a religious problem ....and there is no scientific proof solid enough to prove what you are saying.if you think i am mistaken why dont you show us proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I'm sure that webbing can form - it happens to humans. Genetic mutations in all animals are fairly common - the problem is that most of them aren't advantageous. But some are.

 

As I said, you really should read the Wiki article on evolution for a brief introduction to the subject. (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evolution[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have not answered properly to my question.i was not asking to explain the theory.all what i want is an example of aspecies evolved from another species.

 

BTW it is called evolution theory not fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn't read the Wiki article, did you? It explains that EVERYTHING in science is a theory. Science works by establishing theories which fit the known facts. If different facts arise which the theory cannot account for, the theory is modified or scrapped for a new theory. The theory of evolution fits the known facts and has done for a long time. It is a very robust theory.

 

Newton's theories about gravitation and motion fit the facts for a very long time, until Einstein came along with a theory which fit both the old facts and the newly-discovered facts. Now Einstein's theories are the best fit for the known facts. Possibly new facts will become know (possibly soon, from the CERN project), which will require Einstein's theories to be modified or scrapped. That's how science works.

 

As for how new species form, you've already been told in this thread that many small changes add up to large changes. If being a fast swimmer was a strong enough advantage to humans, then the occasional people born with webbing between their fingers would eventually become the different group of humans. As their children would almost all be born with webbing between their fingers, they would be a different species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you dont know of an example do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

How can he come up with an example, when the paleontologists' study of all the fossil record in the last 200 years, that covered 250,000 species, that date to millions of years, never found one single species in a transforming state from one species to another.

French paleontologist Pierre-Paul Grassé has this to say on the subject:

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms

 

According to the theory of evolution, every species has emerged from a predecessor. One species which existed previously turned into something else over time, and all species have come into being in this way. According to the theory, this transformation proceeds gradually over millions of years.

 

If this were the case, then innumerable intermediate species should have lived during the immense period of time when these transformations were supposedly occurring. For instance, there should have lived in the past some half-fish/half-reptile creatures which had acquired some reptilian traits in addition to the fish traits they already had. Or there should have existed some reptile/bird creatures, which had acquired some avian traits in addition to the reptilian traits they already possessed. Evolutionists refer to these imaginary creatures, which they believe to have lived in the past, as "transitional forms."

 

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record.

 

The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world.48 Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bint Ali, if you want to remain ignorant of current science, that is your problem. Examples of species which have evolved from another species includes every mammal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can he come up with an example, when the paleontologists' study of all the fossil record in the last 200 years, that covered 250,000 species, that date to millions of years, never found one single species in a transforming state from one species to another.

 

That is nonsense, and shows that you do not understand the process of evolution or the concept of a "transforming state". Every species is constantly in a "transforming state", as every species constantly throws up mutations which are harmful, neutral or helpful.

 

Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms... only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms

 

Then he was either very silly or he wrote that before genetics became a fully-fledged science. Also, if you are appealing to a single authority, why do you choose to NOT appeal to the overwhelming majority of scientists who accept that evolution is the best current theory to fit the facts?

 

If such animals had really existed, there would have been millions, even billions, of them. More importantly, the remains of these creatures should be present in the fossil record.

 

They are. Also, it is foolish to expect the fossil record to show everything. Very few soft tissue changes are shown in fossils, only a tiny proportion of all members of a species are preserved in fossils, only certain environments are likely to allow fossilisation. Luckily, there are other ways of finding out about evolution, such as genetics.

 

The wealth of the existing fossil record will surely answer this question. When we look at the paleontological findings, we come across an abundance of fossils. Billions of fossils have been uncovered all around the world.48 Based on these fossils, 250,000 distinct species have been identified, and these bear striking similarities to the 1.5 million identified species currently living on earth.49 (Of these 1.5 million species, 1 million are insects.) Despite the abundance of fossil sources, not a single transitional form has been uncovered, and it is unlikely that any transitional forms will be found as a result of new excavations.

 

This fails to understand what a "transitional form" is. You could think of dinosaurs as a "transitional form" of mammals if you wanted to. Just what is it that you want to see a fossil of?

 

edit - the Wiki article 'Evidence of Common Descent' addresses all your points (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent[/url]

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW it is called evolution theory not fact.

 

That is incorrect. A scientific theory is based on research and experiments, since science is always progressing, scientific theories may change due to new discoveries. I personally believe in Evolution. I don't see what the problem is, Islam does not confirm or go against Evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have not answered properly to my question.i was not asking to explain the theory.all what i want is an example of aspecies evolved from another species.

 

BTW it is called evolution theory not fact.

 

You're asking us to provide proof that takes longer then we can live to reveal itself. Evolution, if it occurs naturally, takes quite a few generations. Now if you want examples of evolution not resulting in a new species, look at the moth. There was a population of moths with white colored wings living in the northern US. Enter the Industrial Revolution and fast forward a decade. As a result of smog and soot from pollution, the forests neighboring the major cites had taken on a brownish black color. To avoid standing out and thus getting eaten, the moth population developed black wings.

 

Theory, the explanation of the effects of physical laws on the universe. Hypothesis, an educated guess based on evidence and critical thinking. Don't confuse the terms.

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


×