Jump to content
Islamic Forum
dot

Darwinism Refuted

Recommended Posts

(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/Abiogenesis"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_en.wikipedia(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/wiki/Abiogenesis[/url]

 

This almost what I wanted...I think...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

In this corner, we have muslims proclaiming their religious faith that Islam and science are not only compatible, but that their sacred texts actually provide knowledge of science that had yet to be discovered at the time.

 

In the other corner, we have muslims proclaiming their religious faith that Islam and science are irreconcilably opposed.

 

Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. It's gonna be a great fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrong. Life is a product of the chemical reactions of carbon in liquid water.

You can get life from none living chemicals.

Life can be dumb with no will, knowlege or motivation. Like a tree. It has no mind.

 

 

 

I think a tree does have a primitive form of a 'mind'. That's the point, it is its own simple 'brain'.

I think it was produced originally from chemical reactions which gradually 'evolved' into particular species (The origin of species being Darwin's major contribution to the world of science).

By the way, Crystals 'grow' and they aren't organic life they are chemically based. Comparable I think.

 

A question for those who don't believe in the ism of Darwin: Does the English word EVOLUTION have any meaning at all to you?

What about GROWTH, CHANGE, MODIFICATION, ADAPTATION ??? All meaningless concepts?

 

Sorry but ...

 

kb

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tim, first of all, there were 'nothing' to begin with. Secondly, even if you have atoms, atoms are just mindless dumb object with no wills,knowledge, motivation. Thirdly, atom and nucleolus are none living objects. Fourthly, you can never get life from non living objects..get me?

 

1) How can you show that there was "nothing" to begin with?

 

2/3) Atoms are not alive in themselves, but they can combine to form chemical structures that are alive. Case in point - You're entirely made up of atoms.

 

4) Can you show that you can never get life from inanimate objects? Can you show, beyond any reasonable doubt, that it's completely impossible for life to arise from non-life?

 

Because evidence shows that it would be possible, given the right circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To reject Evolution is to reject selective animal breeding, medical advancements, and all scientific evidence. Evolution is fact, but it doesn't contradict Islam so I have no problems accepting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^The problem is with the 'common descent' of human beings. It is clear from the Quran that Adam (pbuh) had no father.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What? then why do they still call it the theory of evolution?

 

Hi Redeemed

 

There are two parts to evolution just like any scientific theory.  There is the observed fact of evolution, we see it around us in virtually all the biological sciences, in some of the historical ones such as palaeontology and in the wild when we observe organisms around us, then there is the theory of evolution.  The theory is the set of scientific explanations that we use to model the fact of evolution that we observe.  In other words evolution is both fact and theory just as all scientific theories have both a factual and a theoretical component.

 

Russell

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

You said that I had not demonstrated evolution as an observation and you are right but I can if you just ask.

 

You ask what organisms have evolved the answer simply is they all have, every single species has evolved and is evolving even now.  We see stasis in most large extant species because the niches they occupy are static.  The best way to live in a static niche is to fine tune to it then remain static.  That’s at the macro level, all organisms are still evolving in the constant arms race with pathogens.  We’ve seen the emergence in recent years of humans who are immune to HIV as just one example.  The reason we need new flu vaccines each year is because the flu virus evolves new tricks that defeat the old one.

 

Birds to dinosaurs is a little less clear, birds to reptiles of some sort is very clear, have you heard of archaeopteryx?  It’s a flying, feathered animal with teeth and a scaly reptilian tail.  There are plenty of species evolved from and ancestral to archaeopteryx which spell this story out in more detail if you want to go into it further.  This was indeed a mystery around 200 years ago but we have lots of evidence today so it’s a mystery no longer though we certainly don’t know all the details.  Did you know that you can induce chicken embryos to grow reptilian teeth with a simple chemical trick?  Why would a bird have the genes for teeth if they were created by god?

 

Another clear example of evolution observed in action comes from the laboratory work of Richard Lenski.  In the 1980’s Lenski took one single Escherichia Coli bacterium and founded a population which has been grown in twelve separate populations in the lab ever since.  Bacteria don’t have multiple gene’s at each loci, they have only one strand of genetic code so that one bacteria contained exactly one genotype rather than the more rich and complex arrangement that humans carry.  Among its descendants many variations have been observed and genetically assayed so we can watch in real time how their gene’s evolve and how they adapt.  An amazing evolutionary leap was observed some 10 years ago now, E-Coli can’t metabolize citrate, that’s actually one of the defining tests used by scientists to distinguish E-Coli from other bacteria but one of the twelve strains Lenski created evolved, while we watched, the ability to do so.  This group suddenly increased in population size and diversity at that point given this new energy source and we have assayed the specific genetic changes required, which included multiple new gene’s, all in great detail.

 

Another interesting observation that can easily be explained by evolutionary theory but not by any of the alternatives, other than “god must be crazy” is the recurrent Laryngeal Nerve.  This is one of the nerves which controls the larynx and it runs around one of the heart arteries on its way.  That’s an illogically long way to go to get back to the neck.  Giraffe’s have this nerve and in this animal we see just how illogical this routing is because the larynx is just below the skull but the nerve travels all the way down the neck, around that blood vessel at their heart then back up the neck to its target.  Evolution explains that the nerve took that path when the organs were much closer together but now it’s stuck because there is no way to evolutionarily route it through that artery so it shows clearly our evolutionary origins.  It’s interesting to note that all mammals share this strange arrangement including humans.

 

Another example is Vitamin C.  Almost no animals can suffer from Scurvy because they all produce their own Vitamin C.  It’s a complex of four precursors with four gene’s coding for them.  There are a few animals which can’t do this and the pattern is interesting.  Guinea pigs can’t and the great ape group can’t.  The great ape’s include chimps, orang-utans and humans.  Now when we look at those four gene’s we find that guinea pigs have a specific gene of the four damaged in a specific location so that gene doesn’t work and they can’t produce the vitamin.  When we look at the great apes we see they don’t have this same damage but rather have another loci on another gene damaged.  Interestingly it’s the exact same loci on the exact same gene for all of the group.  Humans, chimps and orang-utans share the exact same defect in the exact same gene in the Vitamin C complex.  It’s been demonstrated in a court of law in the US that shared errors is proof of plagiarism.  Can you see any way in which these three species could have exactly the same error occur in exactly the same gene other than common ancestry?

 

Yes Evolution is observed in the wild, see beak of the finch for a laymans view on this, and in the lab as shown by Lenski’s work and in genetic assays of extant species including humans.  It is also observed in the fossil record and it’s used every day to drive our medical efforts.  Without evolution there would be no such thing as anti-biotic resistance but this is a major problem to us today.  Without evolution we would not need to develop a new flue vaccine each year but again this is something we do need to do.

 

The fact of evolution is real and observed and the theory of evolution is a very well tested scientific theory.  You may not like it, your idea of god may disagree but the fact remains that it’s real and you and your ideas of god have to learn how to deal with that.  Did you know that evolution is now official catholic doctrine?  If you are a catholic you must believe in evolution because the church says so.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

But that is the scientific definition of evolution and yes it happens.  There are ‘improvements’ all the time.  From the virus’s point of view developing resistance to our vaccines is an improvement as is the newly acquired ability to metabolize another energy source as in the lab example I gave.

 

If you are talking about the appearance of life from non-life that’s the field of abiogenesis not evolution.  This field is far more speculative as the events we are discussing happened so very long ago and the organisms involved were so very very simple.  They would not have had skeletons to fossilize and their size would mean that, even if they did fossilize perfectly, we would be unlikely to ever find them.  Mind you progress has been made on a number of fronts in this field.  We now know of the existence of a number of non-living chemical self replicators which can arise from a soup of complex chemicals such as that produced by mixing various chemicals that probably existed on the early earth and exposing them to lightning.  Many of these precursors have been detected in space in comets so there are a number of potential sources for them and their existence in the early universe is known to be true.  Self-replication which is slightly imperfect is all that is needed for evolution to get started so we’ve seen in the lab a plausible start to such a system from which evolution could take off.

 

New life may well arise all the time in the wild but such simple organisms would be quickly consumed by the far more advanced and capable organisms who are already here so they are very unlikely to ever get a foothold on this planet so we won’t ever see them.  I’m not saying that it’s impossible that they could but the odds are seriously stacked against them.

 

The evidence we have suggests that we are all descended from just one line of early progenitors.  All life on earth is based on DNA and uses the same replication machinery.  There is no reason to suspect that other organisms didn’t appear at the same time as our progenitors but they were out competed and went extinct long ago.  DNA does not fossilize well so after all this time we won’t be able to detect it.  Other genetic systems would be likely to have completely disappeared by now and even if they did still exist in the fossil record we would not know what to look for so we are unlikely to ever find them.

 

Your idea that you require an X-Men style improvement to believe in evolution is rather illogical.  The modern theory of evolution says that X-Men styled changes are impossible, if such a change were found it would disprove evolutionary theory at one stroke yet you won’t accept evolutionary theory until you are presented with exactly that sort of evidence, evidence which directly contradicts the theory.  I’m not really sure what to say about that.  You obviously don’t understand much about the theory of evolution.  It sounds rather as if your ideas have come from some uninformed religious source rather than one that actually knows what it’s talking about.  Maybe what you need is to find out what evolutionary theory actually says then you’d have some chance of judging if it’s real. Misconceptions such as this certainly won’t help you.

 

I agree that prediction is a better test of the validity of any system than any other test.  That’s one of the great strengths of science.  One of the reasons why the big bang theory is so widely accepted is that it predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background long before it was discovered.  It’s predicted many other things but that’s a very clear example of the sort of predictions I’d expect from any true system.

 

Evolutionary theory predicts that if you place an organism in a lab environment and present them with a challenge they’ll evolve a way to meet that challenge.  Because of the random nature of the changes the exact path taken can’t be predicted but the outcome is predicted.  That lab experiment I mentioned earlier in which a single bacteria ‘fathered’ a colony of bacteria which evolved the ability to metabolize a food source that their progenitors could not was a clear example of this sort of predictive power.  There are many more examples if you want to go deeper on this question.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

I think I understood that you don’t like what science shows us but that was not the point I was making.  I was aiming to explain why science is powerful and the sorts of evidence that supports it.  You don’t have to like it but it would be interesting if you could show that you actually understood it.  Do you?  Do you understand why it’s important that the big bang theory predicted the existence of the cosmic microwave background radiation long before it was discovered?  Why does that evidence strongly suggest that there’s something to the big bang model of the universe?  Show me that you actually understand that idea and we’ll have something to talk about here.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Yes Lemaitre was a great man and probably deserves far more credit for the big bang theory than he gets.  Mind you many of the details in the current theory weren’t his so his contribution wasn’t as big as some articles paint but he certainly got the ball rolling in that direction.  Yes the big bang was actually a term invented by a reporter the event itself was neigher big nor a bang but that’s another topic entirely.

 

Theories are science, theories are what science is all about.  If you have a problem with some specific theory what you have to do is not complain about it but find some facts which contradict it and its out.  Show that the theory is wrong because it makes false statements and you will remove it.  That’s how science works.

 

You’re right that the big bang theory does not explain the beginning of the universe it’s a theory which explains the evolution of the universe from the moment it came into existence.  It’s like people who complain that biological evolutionary theory does not explain the appearance of life. That is a separate field and needs a separate theory.  The big bang theory and the theory of biological evolution both put constraints on the origin theories but they are not dependant on a specific one.

 

I assume you know just how close to the initiation of the universe the big bang gets?  We can recreate the conditions of the very early universe in experiments here on earth to see how things work and the big bang theory spits out predictions that no one would have expected without it which prove to be correct.  If you wish to say it’s wrong that’s fine, that’s a crucial part of science but you have to be able to point at some evidence that contradicts it or you are just throwing around your opinions.  Is that really all you have against the idea or do you actually see something specific wrong with the modern formulation of the big bang theory?

 

I obviously disagree that science glorifies god, from my observations science has been knocking off god ideas for a long time and the crop that’s left are the one’s which are framed so vaguely that science does not directly contradict them.  Creationism is directly contradicted by the evidence we see around us, you don’t need much of an understanding of this world to know that it’s false.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Yes science is constantly changing but it’s wrong to paint this as a flaw.  In most cases the new theory which replaces the old has to explain all the evidence the old theory explained as well as some new feature of the world that was not known when the first theory was formulated.  Newton was proven wrong by Einstein but you can derive his formulas from Einstein if you limit the math to a small flat slow area of space time.  In other words, in a very real sense, Einstein was an addition to Newton, an addition which showed us how the universe works at a deeper level.  Evolutionary theory is similar.  Darwin formulated it over 150 years ago and it has undergone changes since but these changes have not removed Darwins initial insights they have just added new evidence, new twists and new details to the theory as we discover more and more about the world around us.  This constant changing is a major strength of science and a major weakness of any system which can’t accommodate such changes as new evidence comes to hand.

 

If you follow through from the old testament to the new testament to the quran and even the scientologists views jesus does indeed change.  You’ve put your stake in the ground at one point and said “this is it, this is Jesus” but many other people would disagree with you.  Your claim that he is static is just that, a claim, a personal belief not a statement of fact.  As for debunking the creator you’ll first have to show that there is one.  Like the teapot in orbit around pluto I can’t prove that it does not exist but I don’t think it warrants any serious effort on my part to debunk it.

 

 

lol, the whole chain is missing.

I’m sure that’s your opinion but do you have any evidence for it?  Opinions are a dime a dozen, we all have them but the one’s that count are the one’s backed by good solid evidence.  So what have you’ve got?

 

LOL yes the old “get your own dirt” joke.  Did you know that we can indeed create our own dirt today if wanted to?  Then of course we’d have to move the joke back to energy but we might also have to get god to prove that he actually exists and produced the energy at that point so it would all devolve into farce really unless you can actually prove that god created energy or that he exists.  Can you?

 

Creationism says that humans were created specifically by god and that he did not evolve from ape like ancestors but the evidence shows that we share many genetic traits including damage, errors and inclusions with the great apes so we were obviously not separately designed.  Like I say the evidence clearly does not support your view.  Creationism clearly contradicts the evidence, all versions of creationism do at least all versions I’ve so far come across.

 

You’ll note that I never said that this proves god does not exist, he may well exist, maybe he started the big bang, maybe he played other roles but the evidence is clear on this point, we share genetic code with the apes so we must be evolved from a common ancestor with them or god is a jokester and a fool because he is trying to mislead us and/or he makes mistakes and not just one or two mistakes but thousands of mistakes.  Does that sound like your god?

 

As I said god may be behind the big bang but then he might have created the universe last Thursday with all the appearance of great age including my memories of a childhood that I never lived through.  That must be possible for an all powerful being but it doesn’t sound very likely to me.  Likewise the big bang, sure god could have done it, if he’s all powerful that must be in his power, but we have perfectly rational and even quite well tested ideas of what could have happened back then without god so he didn’t need to even if he did create this universe.  I accept that god might be back there pushing around every sub atomic particle for all of time but again we have math to show how these particles would behave without him so he is at least unnecessary if not non-existent.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Yes it’s very poetic language, I especially love the bit where god put up a tent for the sun to hide in during the night and from where he gets out and runs across the sky during the day.  Talk about amazing insights into how this universe works.  This piece also shows us that the heavens are below the sky which doesn’t really make sense and that the heavens have two ends but we are talking about some very old ideas of how this universe works so such profound misunderstandings are understandable. 

 

Next we learn that the suns heat reaches everything, again we know that’s wrong, the vast majority of this universe is beyond the reach of our sun’s heat in all practical senses but these are very old ideas we are reading here so errors are understandable.

 

What drips from honeycomb if that isn’t honey?  Propolis does not drip, wax does not drip unless you heat it all up first.  Pollen and its products, Bee bread, are solids so they don’t drip.  How many facts of this world can you get wrong in one poetic piece?

 

Now given that it has so many pretty obvious details of this world wrong why should we expect that it has any other ideas right?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Remember it was you who posted that piece full of holes, I merely analysed a few of the holes for you.

 

Yes I’m aware that the universe is expanding. Not sure I agree on the Milky Way bars, I’m not a huge fan of Snickers bars but Mars Bars are good in my humble opinion.  They are manufactured in my local town by the way.  I can’t see the Milky Way ever replacing them but I’ve been wrong about such things in the past.  How often do you see Fruit Tingles these days for example?

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

LOL yes I love swiss cheese!

 

If you’ve never tasted Fruit Tingles you’ve missed out.  I think Mars owns them now but you don’t see many of them, they are a ‘fruit flavoured’ sherbety tablet.  They fizz in your mouth and give you a strong sweet hit at the same time.  Something from my childhood but rare today.

 

Never heard of “Good&Plenty” or “Chu Chu Charlie”.  I guess they are something we don’t get here or they are at least known under a different name.  We did have one called "Chu Chu bars” which may be the same thing but I’m not sure I ever ate one so I don’t know anything about them.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know that any species's physical properties is dependant on its DNA which is inherited from the parents.. Now in Case of environmental change or an urgent need to change a species physical properties there should be a system incorporated in the species body consists of sensors that feel that changes and transform it into a proportional signal that the body can understand then transfer it to a collecting processor who can process these data and calculate the required change in DNA to have the proper new design. Then a mechanism(actuation system) to apply the required changes to DNA; for the next generation since it's too late to change the whole cells'DNA of the grown one...

 

Is that seems logic?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHMAD_73

 

One of the foundational concepts in evolutionary theory is that evolution has no foresight and no intelligence.  It can’t look at an organism and say, wow it would be handy to have wings just in case I need them one day, that’s not how it works.  Each organism has only that which is specifically needs right then and there.  There is no mechanism that can look at the world around a creature and redesign it’s DNA to cope with some change rather each population has a range of random variations, some are taller some are shorter, some are wider some are narrower etc.  Obviously the variations go far deeper than these surface features but the idea is the same at every level.  These variations are not generally great but if the environment changes some of these differences will affect the creature’s survival chances.

 

On one of the Galapagos Islands the finches have been observed for over forty years so we have family histories and genetic details for every single individual bird on the island.  Around ten years ago this island suffered a drought and the birds were observed over several years as the drought progressed.  Over time the middle sized seeds that these birds fed on were eaten out and suddenly having a small beak worked well for finding tiny seeds that the average sized birds had left behind and had difficulty collecting.  At the same time having a large beak capable of breaking big heavy seeds was also an advantage because the middle sized seeds, the easiest one’s to find, had already been eaten while the large seeds were too hard for an average bird to break open.  Over those years the middle sized birds failed to find enough food because they struggled to pick up enough small seeds with their middle sized beaks and they could not break open many of the heavy seeds and the population split into two sub groups one with significantly larger beaks and one with small beaks and very few birds in the middle as these all starved to death within months.

 

You’ll note that there was no teleology in this, no planning or foresight in the birds DNA and no processors working out how to update their DNA just small random variations that we see around us all the time working against a strong selection pressure which killed off the middle sized group of finches and favoured the extremes.  By the time the drought broke the birds had split into two groups who did not look like the same species any more but with the return of the rains their food returned to normal and they spread out to their normal range of beak sizes again.  For a time large beaks mostly bread with large beaks and small beaks mostly bread with small beaks, they had undergone an incipient speciation event but as you can see there was no mechanism or foresight modifying their DNA just random variation and differential survival.

 

As I pointed out in my discussion of those programmable logic array experiments evolution does not understand what it does, there’s no mind out there thinking about how to design the next organism.  Evolution simply takes whatever works and makes minor changes. Some of those changes die, some make babies and only the one’s which successfully make babies get to pass their genes on to the next generation and those gene’s are again modified and tested so they change further over time.

 

So while it may sound like a nice idea to have sensors and a processor deciding what changes to make to the DNA no such thing exists or is required.  It’s certainly a very human idea, to have some form of sensor looking out for changes needed in the DNA but that has nothing to do with how evolution works, it’s far simpler and far more versatile than that.  A system such as you suggest could only react to changes that it was already programmed to understand but the challenges thrown at organisms are not predictable like this, they have to be far more flexible than that.

 

In the end your idea may seem logical but there is no sign that it plays any part in evolution and it’s hard to see how such a system could ever be made sufficiently intelligent to cope with all the various changes that an organism has to deal with.  It’s not as if just getting hotter or colder is all that they face, they may suddenly be faced with a new predator, say a tiger, which they have never faced before.  How would your sensors cope with that sort of change?  How clever would they have to be to work out what a tiger was much less what changes to make to the receipt we call DNA to produce a body capable of defeating a tiger.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

Have a really close look at that video, slow motion helps.  The truck approaches, the flash of the ‘angel’ appears, the truck is swerving left, the angle saves the rider, the truck snaps back to straight about six inches to the right of its previous track just as you would expect if it was two movies stitched together with a video editor.  I’ve seen better evidence than this I’m afraid.  I saw a far better UFO movie, palm trees, buildings the gentle breeze and a quite close view of the bottom of a flying saucer as it passed.  It looked amazing and I even found out which digital video animation package had put it together.  It’s amazing what you can do with video manipulation.  I found that same video used as evidence that it was an alien that saved that person.  It seems to have gone viral.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHMAD_73

 

One of the foundational concepts in evolutionary theory is that evolution has no foresight and no intelligence.  It can’t look at an organism and say, wow it would be handy to have wings just in case I need them one day, that’s not how it works.  Each organism has only that which is specifically needs right then and there.  There is no mechanism that can look at the world around a creature and redesign it’s DNA to cope with some change rather each population has a range of random variations, some are taller some are shorter, some are wider some are narrower etc.  Obviously the variations go far deeper than these surface features but the idea is the same at every level.  These variations are not generally great but if the environment changes some of these differences will affect the creature’s survival chances.

 

On one of the Galapagos Islands the finches have been observed for over forty years so we have family histories and genetic details for every single individual bird on the island.  Around ten years ago this island suffered a drought and the birds were observed over several years as the drought progressed.  Over time the middle sized seeds that these birds fed on were eaten out and suddenly having a small beak worked well for finding tiny seeds that the average sized birds had left behind and had difficulty collecting.  At the same time having a large beak capable of breaking big heavy seeds was also an advantage because the middle sized seeds, the easiest one’s to find, had already been eaten while the large seeds were too hard for an average bird to break open.  Over those years the middle sized birds failed to find enough food because they struggled to pick up enough small seeds with their middle sized beaks and they could not break open many of the heavy seeds and the population split into two sub groups one with significantly larger beaks and one with small beaks and very few birds in the middle as these all starved to death within months.

Russell

 

Hello, Russell

 

seems nice observation and nice example BUT isn't that natural selection? or evolution? where is the evolution here?!

 

I mean all these birds' groups are belong to one species. it just inherited their different traits (DNA) from their anceistors, and the differences are controlled by " laws of inheritance were derived by Gregor Mende" the Dominant and recessive traits for both parents....you know that kind of science.

 

if a specific group died due to a specific environmental circumstances, do't automatically mean we have a new species, or new DNA structure, but the same species with a less variety in a specific trait. BTW some of the survival birds' bread may have the undesired trait again,and with a percentage according to Mendel's law.

 

WHERE IS THE NEW DNA AND THE NEW SPECIES in such example?!!

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

You’ll note that there was no teleology in this, no planning or foresight in the birds DNA and no processors working out how to update their DNA just small random variations that we see around us all the time working against a strong selection pressure which killed off the middle sized group of finches and favoured the extremes.  By the time the drought broke the birds had split into two groups who did not look like the same species any more but with the return of the rains their food returned to normal and they spread out to their normal range of beak sizes again.  For a time large beaks mostly bread with large beaks and small beaks mostly bread with small beaks, they had undergone an incipient speciation event but as you can see there was no mechanism or foresight modifying their DNA just random variation and differential survival.

 
the word random seems to be squeezed here, since the differences in traits will be subjected to the laws of inheritance were derived by Gregor Mende, yes you may not know what trait the next egg have while the final distribution percentages it will be known not only for the concurrent generation but for the next and so on.
 
WHERE IS THE NEW DNA AND THE NEW SPECIES here?!!
 
 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

As I pointed out in my discussion of those programmable logic array experiments evolution does not understand what it does, there’s no mind out there thinking about how to design the next organism.  Evolution simply takes whatever works and makes minor changes. Some of those changes die, some make babies and only the one’s which successfully make babies get to pass their genes on to the next generation and those gene’s are again modified and tested so they change further over time.

 

So while it may sound like a nice idea to have sensors and a processor deciding what changes to make to the DNA no such thing exists or is required.  It’s certainly a very human idea, to have some form of sensor looking out for changes needed in the DNA but that has nothing to do with how evolution works, it’s far simpler and far more versatile than that.  A system such as you suggest could only react to changes that it was already programmed to understand but the challenges thrown at organisms are not predictable like this, they have to be far more flexible than that.

 

In the end your idea may seem logical but there is no sign that it plays any part in evolution and it’s hard to see how such a system could ever be made sufficiently intelligent to cope with all the various changes that an organism has to deal with.  It’s not as if just getting hotter or colder is all that they face, they may suddenly be faced with a new predator, say a tiger, which they have never faced before.  How would your sensors cope with that sort of change?  How clever would they have to be to work out what a tiger was much less what changes to make to the receipt we call DNA to produce a body capable of defeating a tiger.

 

Russell

 

yes, there is no such logic nor system nor physical organs nor software programs, and so there is no evolution and there is no new species comes out of old species....
yes, there could be a higher probability for some members of a species to survive more than others in some specific circumstances due to some relative advantages in some traits BUT that will not make them a new species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Redeemed

 

There are indeed some amazing things that can be done with trick photography then there’s this piece.  Don’t feel sorry for me, when that truck jumped six inches to the right from one frame to the next just as the rider was ‘rescued’ to me that was a clear continuity glitch with the editing.  If you wish to see such flaws as something else then please go ahead but don’t expect other’s to follow you there.  I’ve seen far better fakes than that so I’d expect real evidence to do better.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Evolution is, by one definition, the change in gene frequencies in extant populations from generation to generation.  Clearly the birds had separated into two distinct groups who were only rarely interbreeding.  If that continued the two groups would continue to drift apart and over time would become incapable of interbreeding as many of the other finches on the islands already have.  That’s one of the fascinating things about this island, all of the birds are finches but they have broken into many different species which can’t interbreed over their years on the island. Now this event was not completed because the drought broke and the two groups reformed long before that happened but it did show just how quickly speciation events could occur and how quickly evolutionary change could occur because all of the changes seen were evolution.  Now you want me to show you speciation not evolution which is another thing entirely and this was indeed only an incipient speciation event and one that was not completed but it is clear that that is the direction the birds were heading in.  They had already largely split into two distinct breeding groups.

 

Have you ever heard of ring species?  There are a number of such known and probably many more exist.  These specie exist in locations that are connected horizontally but isolated other than that.  A specific altitude around a large mountain range is one example.  As you travel around their home range you find that the birds fall into different groups.  Each group can interbreed with its immediate neighbours but when you reach the extremes of the range you find that the birds are too different genetically to successfully breed any more with the birds at the opposite end of their range.  They are, by definition, different species.  This is a natural phenomenon but it shows how speciation can occur.  If something happened to some intermediate part of that range the birds at the ends of the range would no longer be connected genetically with each other and could not interbreed even if they came back together because they are genetically incompatible.

 

Someone once pointed out that if you killed every dog that was not a Great Dane or a Chihuahua you’d have created two separate species because these two can’t interbreed.

 

Mendel did some great work but he was unaware of DNA and of Mutations so his work was brilliant but limited.  Today we see mutations all the time and in those e-coli experiments I’ve mentioned a few times we’ve even seen mutations and natural selection inventing novel new abilities in an organism.  E-coli can’t metabolize citrate but after 31000 generations and with just one progenitor so no genetic variation to work with, these organisms evolved the ability to use this food source which was historically a test of their species.  If you wanted to know if your bacteria was e-coli just feed it citrate and if it couldn’t digest it it was e-coli or one of its group and if it could digest it it wasn’t.  Now they learned how to do it while we watched with just mutation, selection and time.

 

You are right that the gene’s for middle sized beaks would persist in the population for some time if nothing else changed but that percentage had already dropped significantly in just the few years of the drought exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.

 

A new species does not require new DNA a new species is formed when two groups of organisms form from one parent but don’t interbreed.  Once that point is reached then future evolution won’t be constrained between the groups as it is in one species so the two can move away from each other genetically to the point where their seed is incompatible but initially they are two different species if they don’t interbreed and that was seen clearly on the island of Daphne Major while the scientists watched.  Less than 2% of breeding pairs, after just two years, were mixed pairings.  If that much of a shift had occurred in just two years how much more profound would the shift have been if the drought had lasted longer?

 

As for your claims that nothing new was invented here as I said we’ve seen novel new inventions while we watched in the lab with those e-coli experiments.  It took them 31000 generations to invent a new metabolic pathway, how long would it take for birds to go through 31000 generations?  Is it any wonder that we don’t see such changes happening in front of us?  We don’t live long enough to watch birds going through that many generations though the fossil record gives us plenty of information on what has happened over similar numbers of generations in the past.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, Russel,

 

I believe you didn't answer the main question, from where those birds will have a new systems that contains a new organs which all should depend on a new structure of the DNA?!!

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Evolution is, by one definition, the change in gene frequencies in extant populations from generation to generation.

 

Russell

 

BUT, still all the varieties they can have to choose from is inherited from their ancestors. the human is a good example as well he, as Science believe, human popped up in middle east Africa about 65,000-100,000 years ago. the next generations separated out in the world and been (isolated) from breading with each other for 40,000 in Europe, 15,000-35,000 in America, 50,000-60,000 years in Australia (I mean the original owners), .......NOW, after more or less 60,000 years the African, Europian, Austrailian have no problem to bread with each other, don't they?!!!

 

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Clearly the birds had separated into two distinct groups who were only rarely interbreeding. If that continued the two groups would continue to drift apart and over time would become incapable of interbreeding

Russell

 

 

who told they will be incapable of interbreeding?! speculations?! what the assumed change may happen to their DNA to cause so? who controls such changes?! Humans separated more than 60,000 years and then they have no problems in breading as showed before, and not only this but there is any slightest indication about a proposed problems neither now nor in the future.

 

OK, here is another simple question so that we can understand "evolution" and not depend on speculations and guissing in the 21th century, ..

 

IF HUMANS GROUPS KEPT ISOLATED FOR MORE THAN 100,000 YEARS (PUT THE NUMBER YOU LIKE) AND THEN MET AGAIN, CAN THEY BREAD?!! WHY?!!

 

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

If that continued the two groups would continue to drift apart and over time would become incapable of interbreeding as many of the other finches on the islands already have.

 

Russell

 

If you have better examples bring them, but if we find now a days two different (alike) species, you should be able to proof that it were not two from the very beginning, the god created them like that, I mean the "nature".....

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Have you ever heard of ring species? There are a number of such known and probably many more exist. These specie exist in locations that are connected horizontally but isolated other than that. A specific altitude around a large mountain range is one example. As you travel around their home range you find that the birds fall into different groups. Each group can interbreed with its immediate neighbours but when you reach the extremes of the range you find that the birds are too different genetically to successfully breed any more with the birds at the opposite end of their range. They are, by definition, different species. This is a natural phenomenon but it shows how speciation can occur. If something happened to some intermediate part of that range the birds at the ends of the range would no longer be connected genetically with each other and could not interbreed even if they came back together because they are genetically incompatible.

 

Someone once pointed out that if you killed every dog that was not a Great Dane or a Chihuahua you’d have created two separate species because these two can’t interbreed.

 

Russell

 

who can prove they they were not two species from the beginning?!

 

why the two different shapes of dogs can't bread? is that due to DNA problems?!!

 

 

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Mendel did some great work but he was unaware of DNA and of Mutations so his work was brilliant but limited. Today we see mutations all the time and in those e-coli experiments I’ve mentioned a few times we’ve even seen mutations and natural selection inventing novel new abilities in an organism. E-coli can’t metabolize citrate but after 31000 generations and with just one progenitor so no genetic variation to work with, these organisms evolved the ability to use this food source which was historically a test of their species. If you wanted to know if your bacteria was e-coli just feed it citrate and if it couldn’t digest it it was e-coli or one of its group and if it could digest it it wasn’t. Now they learned how to do it while we watched with just mutation, selection and time.

 

You are right that the gene’s for middle sized beaks would persist in the population for some time if nothing else changed but that percentage had already dropped significantly in just the few years of the drought exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory.

 

A new species does not require new DNA a new species is formed when two groups of organisms form from one parent but don’t interbreed. Once that point is reached then future evolution won’t be constrained between the groups as it is in one species so the two can move away from each other genetically to the point where their seed is incompatible but initially they are two different species if they don’t interbreed and that was seen clearly on the island of Daphne Major while the scientists watched. Less than 2% of breeding pairs, after just two years, were mixed pairings. If that much of a shift had occurred in just two years how much more profound would the shift have been if the drought had lasted longer?

 

As for your claims that nothing new was invented here as I said we’ve seen novel new inventions while we watched in the lab with those e-coli experiments. It took them 31000 generations to invent a new metabolic pathway, how long would it take for birds to go through 31000 generations? Is it any wonder that we don’t see such changes happening in front of us? We don’t live long enough to watch birds going through that many generations though the fossil record gives us plenty of information on what has happened over similar numbers of generations in the past.

 

Russell

 

how long did this experiment take, who did commit it, who can assure that, there is no any interventions?!!keep us ​away from bacteria and virus, it's too far to be easily understood by normal persons,

 

also why a simmilar DNA species can't bread, can you explain this point?

 

tell me what could have happened if human kept isolated more than 60,000 years?! and what could be our future, do we will have longer legs, or bigger heads for example, or we may walk on four again?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi AHMAD_73

 

Every change observed in those birds was caused by their DNA but I never claimed that they had or would develop new organs.  Speciation does not require that and the example was an example of insipient speciation.  It won’t conform to some creationist caricature but to the scientific definition of that process that you can find in any true evolutionary text.

 

There are currently no restrictions on breeding between humans from any continent though there has been only limited gene flow between populations for some time.  You say the Australian aborigines were isolated for 60000 years but they traded with and interbred with the Asians to our north for most of that time so the population was not in fact isolated though gene flow was restricted.  The same is true for all the other populations which had limited but persistent gene flow for the majority of their existence.  Isolation is required for speciation.  That isolation can be mate choice based or it can be a physical barrier such as an ocean or a mountain range but separation must occur.  Those birds displayed mate choice based separation with virtually all small beaks breeding with small beaks and virtually all large beaks breeding with large beaks.  There was still gene flow between the populations so speciation had not occurred but the conditions which produced this event only lasted for a few years so full speciation was unlikely.

 

Let me ask you something, how long do you think it takes for sufficient changes to occur between groups for form two genetically incompatible species? We are now incompatible with the other members of the great ape family who we share many specific viral inclusions and genetic errors with so we were clearly one breeding population when those changes occurred but that has probably taken over six million years.  In fast breeding species these changes can occur much faster.  Those e-coli have formed a new species with the bacterial equivalent of new organs in around 31000 generations and they are far simpler organisms and faster evolving than humans.

 

Of course the scientific definition, rather than the creationist idea, is that the two populations can’t or won’t interbreed.  They may be genetically compatible but if they avoid each other sexually they are separate species.  Creationists seem to want one of the groups to have developed an extra few arms and to be genetically incompatible but that is not how evolutionary theory works so you are arguing over straw men here.

 

You asked how long would it take to form two separate species of humans which is an interesting question.  We are diploid species so our DNA has to match up with our mates to form a successful offspring.  The changes needed are that our DNA has to alter form such that this matching up can’t occur.  Donkeys and horses have done this but so recently that pairings still produce offspring so it’s not a simple binary event.  We now have a different number of chromosomes to the great apes, they have one more than we do, so we are incompatible and that occurred what over a period of six million years or so.  I’m guessing that we would be genetically incompatible with many of our intermediate ancestors but we can’t test that.  Interestingly when you match up the human chromosome with the two extra chimp chromosomes they actually match.  The chimp carries one of our chromosomes split into two and most of the gene’s are still located in the same positions when this is done.

 

Darwin observed the many bird species on the Galapagos islands and many samples were collected but once they returned to England something really interesting was found.  All the different species of birds were finches, from the smallest to the largest.  The one parent population had evolved to fill all the usual bird niches.  No no one watched while it happened though we can clearly see in their DNA that they are all finches and even that they originated from a single Gouldian finch population way back when.

 

I’ve said before that we can’t prove that god didn’t create the universe last Thursday with all the appearance of age so there is actually no way to prove that god didn’t create these species exactly as they are but that conclusion makes no sense even though it’s impossible to disprove.  I’ve explained the great ape Vitamin C defect before and it is clear evidence of common descent.  All great apes, unlike virtually all other animals on earth, can suffer from scurvy because they can’t produce Vitamin C.  When we look at their DNA we see that they all carry the four gene’s which go together to produce the vitamin but one of them has a defect.  We can tell that it’s a defect because we can see the gene working in pretty much every other species on earth but in the great apes that one is not transcribed due to that defect.  All of the great apes and only the great apes, and that includes humans, share the exact same defect on the exact same gene at the same locus in our DNA.  Maybe god’s a bungler but that doesn’t make much sense don’t you think?

 

I think you missed the point with ring species; there is gene flow through a series of 3 or more species around an obstacle.  Group one breeds with itself and with group two.  Group two breeds with itself, group one and group three.  That continues on till you get to group seven, for example, which breeds with group six but doesn’t ever breed with group one even though they live right next to each other.  In some cases group seven and group one do have sex but they can’t produce offspring as they are genetically incompatible.  They are different species but their gene’s can flow around that chain back to species one via all the other intermediates.  Quite a few ring species are known to exist and probably many more do that we are not aware of.

 

The dog’s I mentioned can’t interbreed for simple physical size differences.  The mechanics of sex don’t work and the mechanics of growing a huge dog in a tiny mother would kill both.  Naturally these two groups never interbreed which is the scientific definition of speciation.

 

One of the limitations we face when studying speciation and evolution is that it takes many generations.  Humans breed slowly so you can’t observe much change in a human lifetime.  We see plenty of change over geological time in the fossil record and in our DNA but we can’t observe it. Is it any wonder then that if you want to see evolution in action you have to work with fast breeding species, fruit fly and e-coli for example.  Both species have been used in experiments that let us look at how evolution and speciation work.   How many years would it take to observe 50000 human generations?  That has been done in a lab since the 1980’s with e-coli.  Much more change can be observed with such fast breeding species.  I’m sorry if you have trouble understanding the results of these experiments but they are still, for those of us who can understand them, the best evidence by far that we can generate in a lab while we watch of evolution in action.

 

The e-coli experiment took over 31000 generations and twenty years to produce the new citrate metabolic abilities.  Many scientists took part in it but the colonies were started by Richard E. Lenski of Michigan state University, Irvine, California who I think still heads the project.  I’m not buying into any paranoid theories of experiment tampering in these sorts of experiments. The DNA evidence clearly speaks against this for starters but the idea that anyone could invent that new bacteria is currently ludicrous though we are getting closer.

 

When you say a similar DNA species can’t bread you’ll have to define similar.  We are genetically very very similar to the great apes but we can’t interbreed.  There is enough difference in our chromosomes that they will not match up to form a new life even if anyone wanted to get that close to one of them.

 

The genetic future of humanity is an open question.  At the moment we use our science to dramatically relax our own selection pressure.  The range of our variation is very high because of this.  Once upon a time many people would have died from diseases or from physical defects but today we cure disease with our medical abilities and we solve many disabilities from poor eyesight to missing limbs with physical interventions and these people go on to live and breed.  That means that the weeding out side of evolution does not apply as significantly to humans as it would if we were still a wild living species.  One day we will face a selection event.  A disease that our medicine can’t deal with or a calamity which destroys the basis of our society leaving us as again clever but wild living beings and we’ll see selection pressure returned in full force but till then we are genetically spreading out.

 

We are getting taller but much of that is not genetic, short people have as many children as tall people as far as I know, but rather it’s down to better nutrition etc.  In the long run, to find a direction for humans, you have to identify genetic variants that make people better or worse at producing babies.  Unfortunately at the moment being clever does not seem to be it as the clever among us choose to have children later if at all while the low IQ among us breed prodigiously.  Hopefully that isn’t going to significantly drive our evolution because I don’t think any of us would like where that takes us.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is old posting but I cannot for the life of me fathom why people of a religious bent persist on denying the phenomenon of evolution, when the evidence is so overwhelming and available to anyone who takes the trouble to look.  Well, actually I DO know.  The fact of evolution poses a devastating blow to the comfortable and easy to digest creation myth.  However, there are many people with deep religious convictions (including some scientists) who have no problem accepting the evidence for evolution, and that includes major religions, popes, archbishops and what-have-you.

 

BUT, having said that, even if the theory of evolution were to be wrong, it still doesn't prove that gods exist or are responsible for creating the universe.  Evolution is based on good evidence.  Gods are mere intellectual constructs.  So forget trying to argue the science.  It's pointless.  Evolution is a fact, like air water and earth.  Please, my Islamic brothers and sisters, just stick to theology.       

Edited by Olaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Olaf

 

The Conflict Between Religion and Science, (by William Draper) mentions how people belonging to the Islamic faith already knew about evolution. In fact it is refered to as 'the Muhammaden theory of the evolution of man from lower forms”.

 

Denying evolution not only puts Muslims out of touch with established science, it puts them out of touch with their own scientific heritage. Islam has a rich scientific history- you can simply google this yourself and establish.

 

 

Ibn Khaldun, perhaps one of the most famous Muslim Polymaths of all time, published a book called 'The Muqadimmah' in 1377 CE. In it he states:


 

 

One should then take a look at the world of creation. It started
out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner,
to plants and animals. The last stage of minerals is connected with the
first stage of plants, such as herbs and seedless plants. The last stage
of plants, such as palms and vines, is connected with the first stage
of animals, such as snails and shellfish.

 

 

He adds:


 


 

The animal world then widens, its species become numerous, and,
in a gradual process of creation, it finally leads to man, who is able
to think and reflect. The higher stage of man is reached from the world
of monkeys, in which both sagacity and perception are found...

 

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


×