Jump to content
Islamic Forum
atheism101

The Theory Of Evolution

Recommended Posts

What is your take on evolution? For more: talkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_quran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/18/51"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_quran(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/18/51[/url]

I did not make them witness to the creation of the heavens and the earth or to the creation of themselves, and I would not have taken the misguiders as assistants.[using large font size is not allowed]

For someone who loves that's ####roaches are his parents, it's his own problem.

Edited by Absolute truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi, Atheist 101

have a nice time in the Islamic Forum,

 

1- among the 100,000s or millions of creatures on earth, and since human began to recognize and record about creatures/animals (could be 1000s of years), more than 150 years of them after the appearance of such theory, i can't see a good practical example of evolution. i mean a new species that come out of an old one?

 

2- what is the supposed mechanism of evolution? what will be sensing danger in the body/cell? how it will figure out the solution? how it will apply it to the body? how to change the DNA?

 

3- is evolution have to happen to both the male and female in the same time and place, since both are different in many systems, what probability?

 

4- is the evolution will appear on the life animal or in the next generation? i mean do the monkey will get up to find himself a different species? or it will beer a child and find it a new species? in both cases how to deal with him?

 

5- for 1000s of years, some people lived in desert, others lived in islands? what evolution did in their bodies?

 

6- what could be the next evolution in human being?

 

7- what is the definition of death? can we expect it?

 

8- why we can't bring dead creature to life again? even a single cell creature?

 

Allow me to send you a message from the one, most merciful omnipotent real creator of us and every thing,

In the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

045.024 S: And they say: There is nothing but our life in this world; we live and die and nothing destroys us but time, and they have no knowledge of that; they only conjecture.

017.085 P: They are asking thee concerning the Spirit. Say: The Spirit is by command of my Lord, and of knowledge ye have been vouchsafed but little.

049.013 Y: O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, since I am just starting on this forum, I did not realize that the link was being blocked. I meant to originally say that for more information about evolution, you may visit talkorigins dot org.

 

[at]Absolute truth

It is absolutely absurd to say that evolution means you believe ####roaches are your parents. This shows a complete lack of understanding on your part, since you've missed both main ideas behind evolution - that every living thing shares a common ancestor and that changes happened over a long period of time, i.e. billions of years. Presenting evolution like it is something that makes people think that their parents were ####roaches is as bad as, if not worse than, presenting planetary orbits as believing that planets grow legs and walk around the sun.

What do you think about science in general? Would you accept ANY scientific discovery if it went against Islam?

 

[at]Ahmad_73

I really appreciate that you took the time to write down a more well thought out answer.

Hopefully, I can clear up your misconceptions about evolution. Note that when I came to accept evolution, I was still a Muslim. Therefore I encourage you to accept wherever the evidence points. Accepting evolution will not make you an atheist - I just want to make sure that is clear, so that you do not fear that accepting evolution is somehow bad.

 

If you want to study evolution on your own, I certainly recommend reading the true scientific consensus on this. I recommend talkorigins dot org because it goes through common misconceptions about evolution.

 

1. As I understand it, you are asking for an example of a new species coming out of an old one.

First, you must understand what a species is. I got this definition from online:

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding

Under this definition, it is very unlikely that we would classify animals only a few generations apart as suddenly different species. This is because each step of natural selection is negligible on an individual basis. Changes are noticeable only over very long periods of time. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Scientists know that the earliest life was somewhere around the order of 3 billion years ago. In such a gigantic time frame, it would indeed be odd if we saw drastic changes in short periods of time. Furthermore, species are just arbitrarily classified by humans. Nature, on the other hand, cannot recognize species. We ourselves define what a species is, so obviously under this definition, we would always call the offspring of a dog and a dog a dog. Evolution does not dispute this. It does not claim that a dog and a dog will give birth to a cow. This is just a misconception.

That being said, there ARE examples of natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that the creatures most fit to survive in certain conditions will have the best chance at being able to mate and have offspring. Logically, over time, features that are useful for living in the conditions of that area will start to become more numerous, as there were more parents with this feature that were able to mate and have offspring.

For this, you must understand that variation happens naturally. This is easy to understand - your physical properties are different from your parents (though you share some properties from both of them).

Now, consider the example of bugs. Say there is a species of bugs that goes from white to black and everything in between. If your mom bug was white and your dad bug was black, you'd be a gray bug. Now lets say the bugs only come out at night, so it is harder to see the black ones. If, for example, an owl preys on bugs, it will see the white ones more often. Eventually, more white bugs will die than black bugs. The darker a bug will be, the more chance it will have of surviving. If the bug survives long enough, it will be able to reproduce. It's children will also be darker. So, eventually, there will be very few light colored bugs left, because all the previous light colored bugs got eaten before they could reproduce. This is a beautiful example of natural selection - after a few generations, the bugs that are harder to see are more common.

Natural selection has countless examples, and is also logically sound. Now given billions of years, natural selection could make very big changes. Natural selection explains why polar bears are so fit for where they live, or how lions are so fit for where they live, etc.

2. I've already explained most of this. As far as changes in DNA, this may be attributed to random variations as well as the genes of your parents - you would get characteristics of both parents. DNA is a very very strong support for evolution, as it gives us a basis where random changes could be recorded - in other words, it would insure that you are somehow related to your parents' characteristics.

If we consider the DNA of all species today, it makes a perfect family tree - exactly what we would expect from evolution. This same family tree may be achieved through fossil records, geographical records, etc., giving us a very great deal of evidence to believe that indeed such a family tree is there because all life shared a common ancestor.

3. Evolution would not necessarily happen the same way for both males and females. Again, though, you must note that evolution doesn't just immediately happen. Thus any minute changes from one generation to the next between the genders would be "cancelled out", so to speak, in the next generation, since males and females would have to mate to have offspring for the next generation. The offspring would have characteristics of both parents.

4. I already answered this in #1.

5. I'm not sure I understand your question. From what I understand though, in theory there would not be too much visible physical change between different people, since not enough time has passed for something like that to happen. Plus, beyond this point it is unlikely that there are any visible changes in our future. This is because we have become very fit to survive in any climate. Evolution would apply if we were somehow in danger of not being able to reproduce unless we had certain characteristics. That is simply not the case anymore, because now we have to resources that allow people to survive. Of course, evolution is responsible for giving us the brains necessary to make such tools.

You will, however, probably find a few minor differences here and there.

6. I already answered this in #5. Just note that evolution does not have a mind of its own, so it doesn't just make everything big and strong - just more fit. Most likely, in the future we won't be too different.

7. I do not understand why this is relevant to a discussion about evolution. Death would be when the chemical processes keeping someone alive stop functioning.

8. This is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. This does not at all affect the great amount of evidence for evolution.

As far as abiogenesis is concerned, we understand that it is very possible. All of the components necessary for life HAVE been reproduced in lab conditions. This plus time plus natural selection would lead to the first cell.

You are asking why we humans cannot bring a dead cell back to life. Again this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not claim that we have to be able to create life. Abiogenesis would suggest that a cell may arise from completely natural processes, and this we already know to be true.

 

I am not foreign to Islam. I was a Muslim for 17 years of my life. Soon I will begin a post about whether or not God exists - that would be a good place to bring up quotes or arguments for the existence of God, but here, I just want to ask about evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks, for being so patient to replay all of this,

i hope you are just with the same open mind you hope us to have,

my god didn't leave me alone in such arguments with such ideas, 1400 years ago he, almighty, challenged those people with a specified, clear, measured points, I mentioned it as I understand it in this thread

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=737295&hl=creation"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...amp;hl=creation[/url], and you may like to have a look at this too, (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=737834&st=0&p=1252849entry1252849"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...p;#entry1252849[/url]

 

[at]Ahmad_73

I really appreciate that you took the time to write down a more well thought out answer.

Hopefully, I can clear up your misconceptions about evolution. Note that when I came to accept evolution, I was still a Muslim. Therefore I encourage you to accept wherever the evidence points. Accepting evolution will not make you an atheist - I just want to make sure that is clear, so that you do not fear that accepting evolution is somehow bad.

 

If you want to study evolution on your own, I certainly recommend reading the true scientific consensus on this. I recommend talkorigins dot org because it goes through common misconceptions about evolution.

 

1. As I understand it, you are asking for an example of a new species coming out of an old one.

First, you must understand what a species is. I got this definition from online:

A group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding

Under this definition, it is very unlikely that we would classify animals only a few generations apart as suddenly different species. This is because each step of natural selection is negligible on an individual basis. Changes are noticeable only over very long periods of time. The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Scientists know that the earliest life was somewhere around the order of 3 billion years ago. In such a gigantic time frame, it would indeed be odd if we saw drastic changes in short periods of time. Furthermore, species are just arbitrarily classified by humans. Nature, on the other hand, cannot recognize species. We ourselves define what a species is, so obviously under this definition, we would always call the offspring of a dog and a dog a dog. Evolution does not dispute this. It does not claim that a dog and a dog will give birth to a cow. This is just a misconception.

That being said, there ARE examples of natural selection. Natural selection is the idea that the creatures most fit to survive in certain conditions will have the best chance at being able to mate and have offspring. Logically, over time, features that are useful for living in the conditions of that area will start to become more numerous, as there were more parents with this feature that were able to mate and have offspring.

For this, you must understand that variation happens naturally. This is easy to understand - your physical properties are different from your parents (though you share some properties from both of them).

Now, consider the example of bugs. Say there is a species of bugs that goes from white to black and everything in between. If your mom bug was white and your dad bug was black, you'd be a gray bug. Now lets say the bugs only come out at night, so it is harder to see the black ones. If, for example, an owl preys on bugs, it will see the white ones more often. Eventually, more white bugs will die than black bugs. The darker a bug will be, the more chance it will have of surviving. If the bug survives long enough, it will be able to reproduce. It's children will also be darker. So, eventually, there will be very few light colored bugs left, because all the previous light colored bugs got eaten before they could reproduce. This is a beautiful example of natural selection - after a few generations, the bugs that are harder to see are more common.

Natural selection has countless examples, and is also logically sound. Now given billions of years, natural selection could make very big changes. Natural selection explains why polar bears are so fit for where they live, or how lions are so fit for where they live, etc.

Personally, I may not differ with you on such explanation of natural selection. While the main question was about evolution, which as far as I know, means the creation of a new species out of an old one, not the relative probabilities of a certain species to survive in a certain circumstances.

 

2. I've already explained most of this. As far as changes in DNA, this may be attributed to random variations as well as the genes of your parents - you would get characteristics of both parents. DNA is a very very strong support for evolution, as it gives us a basis where random changes could be recorded - in other words, it would insure that you are somehow related to your parents' characteristics.

If we consider the DNA of all species today, it makes a perfect family tree - exactly what we would expect from evolution. This same family tree may be achieved through fossil records, geographical records, etc., giving us a very great deal of evidence to believe that indeed such a family tree is there because all life shared a common ancestor..

Here, allow me to explain what I got, any human being will have two copies of features related to his own parents after the Enrichment of the egg by sperm, and Allah will select him the features (DNA) that will characterize him from the limited verities his parents had. The one will resemble the parents and ancestors.

Now, if a problem happened in coping such DNA process, in the early days/weeks of the creation in the womb, a problem will appear on such human. Which Alhamdu llelah is more than rare, measured by ones per millions. And that seems like a man constructing a car, for example, and instead of installing the rivet in it's proper place he install it in the glass.

Where is the creation of a new species out of human?

 

3. Evolution would not necessarily happen the same way for both males and females. Again, though, you must note that evolution doesn't just immediately happen. Thus any minute changes from one generation to the next between the genders would be "cancelled out", so to speak, in the next generation, since males and females would have to mate to have offspring for the next generation. The offspring would have characteristics of both parents..

Do you mean for example if a male who happened to have " Mongolian idiocy genetic disease" when marry a woman who have a "skin discolored genetic disease" they will have a new spices, and if they have in this case is it seems a natural selection?

 

4. I already answered this in #1..

A- But not the part of, how the old species (mother) can deal with the new species (son), how to suckle him, feed, deal with him, ….

B- And how the other flock will see him and deal with him as a stranger, how can it marries out of the old species, ……

C- If they didn't kill him in infancy, how to live as the only lonely new young outcast and weak species in a wild world? find the new kind of foods the new enemies,…..

 

5. I'm not sure I understand your question. From what I understand though, in theory there would not be too much visible physical change between different people, since not enough time has passed for something like that to happen. Plus, beyond this point it is unlikely that there are any visible changes in our future. This is because we have become very fit to survive in any climate. Evolution would apply if we were somehow in danger of not being able to reproduce unless we had certain characteristics. That is simply not the case anymore, because now we have to resources that allow people to survive. Of course, evolution is responsible for giving us the brains necessary to make such tools.

You will, however, probably find a few minor differences here and there..

A- Is it random changes or facing danger?

B- The scientists did discover that the immunity system is the one system responsible for attacking the different dangers that attacks our bodies, they discovered too the different parts of it and the mechanism it works by. Now what system in the human body will sense the fatal danger, and how to figure out if that requires a specific changes in the DNA?

C- as I understand that danger have to stay in the same manner and severity for 100,000s of years (you just told me it's billions of years) to began to do such evolution, how would the next generations have an idea that the previous one suffered a specific danger?

 

7. I do not understand why this is relevant to a discussion about evolution. Death would be when the chemical processes keeping someone alive stop functioning..

What may cause these processes to stop, For some one who seems young, strong and fit, and who have every available medical test tells he is just very well ?

 

8. This is a question about abiogenesis, not evolution. Abiogenesis is life from non-life. This does not at all affect the great amount of evidence for evolution.

As far as abiogenesis is concerned, we understand that it is very possible. All of the components necessary for life HAVE been reproduced in lab conditions. This plus time plus natural selection would lead to the first cell.

What could be the time required, in your opinion, billions/millions/….tens of years?

 

You are asking why we humans cannot bring a dead cell back to life. Again this has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution does not claim that we have to be able to create life. Abiogenesis would suggest that a cell may arise from completely natural processes, and this we already know to be true.

Do You mean, you don't care about how the first cell came to life?

Or how to bring dead cell to life?

 

I am not foreign to Islam. I was a Muslim for 17 years of my life. Soon I will begin a post about whether or not God exists - that would be a good place to bring up quotes or arguments for the existence of God, but here, I just want to ask about evolution.

I hope you to have another happy 100 years, brother

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks, for being so patient to replay all of this,

i hope you are just with the same open mind you hope us to have,

my god didn't leave me alone in such arguments with such ideas, 1400 years ago he, almighty, challenged those people with a specified, clear, measured points, I mentioned it as I understand it in this thread

you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...amp;hl=creation, and you may like to have a look at this too, you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...p;#entry1252849

Personally, I may not differ with you on such explanation of natural selection. While the main question was about evolution, which as far as I know, means the creation of a new species out of an old one, not the relative probabilities of a certain species to survive in a certain circumstances.

 

Evolution is nothing more than natural selection + time. If you understand anything I said in the previous post, then you know that evolution is fact. If not, that means you aren't willing to listen to anything that disagrees with your current beliefs.

 

Here, allow me to explain what I got, any human being will have two copies of features related to his own parents after the Enrichment of the egg by sperm, and Allah will select him the features (DNA) that will characterize him from the limited verities his parents had. The one will resemble the parents and ancestors.

Now, if a problem happened in coping such DNA process, in the early days/weeks of the creation in the womb, a problem will appear on such human. Which Alhamdu llelah is more than rare, measured by ones per millions. And that seems like a man constructing a car, for example, and instead of installing the rivet in it's proper place he install it in the glass.

 

Okay, so bad copies of DNA that cause diseases are rare, and DNA copying is a series of chemical reactions. Your point? This has nothing to do with design. The universe has the appearance of the design, but this does not mean it has a designer. In fact, if the universe was designed, the designer sucks at designing things. A human engineer could have designed things more efficiently. For example, you breathe and ingest through the same pathway - something that is very dangerous and not necessary.

That there are ANY problems with DNA copying suggest that there is no designer. Any perfectly potent designer could not possibly make any mistakes. It is, however, better explained with chemical reactions, which we understand and know must happen. Occasionally, there may be insufficient chemicals of one type that may cause a different reaction or no reaction or less than necessary reaction to occur.

 

 

Where is the creation of a new species out of human?

 

...So now I am sure that you didn't even care to read what I said in the previous post. You do not care to listen to anything that disagrees with your current belief. How dare you call yourself open-minded? It's an insult to the word.

 

Do you mean for example if a male who happened to have " Mongolian idiocy genetic disease" when marry a woman who have a "skin discolored genetic disease" they will have a new spices, and if they have in this case is it seems a natural selection?

A- But not the part of, how the old species (mother) can deal with the new species (son), how to suckle him, feed, deal with him, ….

B- And how the other flock will see him and deal with him as a stranger, how can it marries out of the old species, ……

C- If they didn't kill him in infancy, how to live as the only lonely new young outcast and weak species in a wild world? find the new kind of foods the new enemies,…..

A- Is it random changes or facing danger?

B- The scientists did discover that the immunity system is the one system responsible for attacking the different dangers that attacks our bodies, they discovered too the different parts of it and the mechanism it works by. Now what system in the human body will sense the fatal danger, and how to figure out if that requires a specific changes in the DNA?

C- as I understand that danger have to stay in the same manner and severity for 100,000s of years (you just told me it's billions of years) to began to do such evolution, how would the next generations have an idea that the previous one suffered a specific danger? What may cause these processes to stop, For some one who seems young, strong and fit, and who have every available medical test tells he is just very well ?

 

More gibberish showing that you did not care to read anything I said.

 

What could be the time required, in your opinion, billions/millions/….tens of years?

 

It depends. What type of change are you expecting? It also depends on the situation. Is it related to humans? As I explained already (but you obviously did not read or understand it), humans probably won't go through significant changes anymore, because we can now survive very harsh conditions with the tools we have. On the chemical level though, we change from generation to generation...

If it is birds, it may be a matter of decades or even a few years before they become physically different. This is what Darwin had witnessed.

We can observe drug-resisting bacteria evolving in a matter of years.

 

Do You mean, you don't care about how the first cell came to life?

Or how to bring dead cell to life?

I hope you to have another happy 100 years, brother

 

These things have nothing to do with evolution.

Like I said, we already know that a cell can come to be by purely natural means. We also know all of the functions of a cell and hence understand why we cannot bring a dead cell back to life.

I hope you actually care to read what I said this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Evolution is nothing more than natural selection + time. If you understand anything I said in the previous post, then you know that evolution is fact. If not, that means you aren't willing to listen to anything that disagrees with your current beliefs.

 

The problem seems to be in your belief, not mine. Why do you think their still many (if not most) of the biologists are believers? Although they surely understand what you are trying to explain, many times better than you. You are just following the Atheist branch of the scientists not the mere science. It is the belief, friend.

 

You explained what is called natural selection (relative probabilities of a certain species with a relative advantage to survive in a certain circumstances), and that's seems logic. That may requires a relative long time and that's seems logic too. Then abruptly you added another time to have a new species out of the old, and here is the problem. how to have the new genes, what organs will detect the circumstances, how to know the needed new features, what mechanism will create the new genes, how to change DNA in such direction, ….?

 

Here, allow me to explain what I got, any human being will have two copies of features related to his own parents after the Enrichment of the egg by sperm, and Allah will select him the features (DNA) that will characterize him from the limited verities his parents had. The one will resemble the parents and ancestors.

Now, if a problem happened in coping such DNA process, in the early days/weeks of the creation in the womb, a problem will appear on such human. Which Alhamdu llelah is more than rare, measured by ones per millions. And that seems like a man constructing a car, for example, and instead of installing the rivet in it's proper place he install it in the glass.

 

Okay, so bad copies of DNA that cause diseases are rare, and DNA copying is a series of chemical reactions. Your point? This has nothing to do with design. The universe has the appearance of the design, but this does not mean it has a designer. In fact, if the universe was designed, the designer sucks at designing things. A human engineer could have designed things more efficiently. For example, you breathe and ingest through the same pathway - something that is very dangerous and not necessary.

Did you discover this yourself or red it in a scientific book?

How did you calculate the risk probabilities in such issue?

What elese is un-professional in the human design? Do you think the (Appendix ) is an usless extra part?

 

That there are ANY problems with DNA copying suggest that there is no designer. Any perfectly potent designer could not possibly make any mistakes.

 

It could be a self content punishment for those who don't follow the designer orders. For those who practice incest and different types of adultery that mixes the lineages. For those who produce a cheep kind chemicals, as drugs and fertilizers. For hose who used the nuclear weapons and the exhausted Uranium in the their weapons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is, however, better explained with chemical reactions, which we understand and know must happen. Occasionally, there may be insufficient chemicals of one type that may cause a different reaction or no reaction or less than necessary reaction to occur.

 

And what may cause the lack of such chemicals?

 

Do you mean for example if a male who happened to have " Mongolian idiocy genetic disease" when marry a woman who have a "skin discolored genetic disease" they will have a new spices, and if they have in this case is it seems a natural selection?

A- But not the part of, how the old species (mother) can deal with the new species (son), how to suckle him, feed, deal with him, ….

B- And how the other flock will see him and deal with him as a stranger, how can it marries out of the old species, ……

C- If they didn't kill him in infancy, how to live as the only lonely new young outcast and weak species in a wild world? find the new kind of foods the new enemies,…..

More gibberish showing that you did not care to read anything I said.

 

I feel like we need a judge here, the questions are about,

How the old species (parents) can deal with the new species (sons)?

Where in your post, you answered that?

 

I'll add another point,

D- do the womb of the old species (mother) will support to complete the pregnancy of such new species son?

 

that was my example of a new species, it just satisfies the theory you mentioned, if you don't like it. why not you give us a real example?

 

here is what you explained what may cause DNA changes, from your post,

Evolution would apply if we were somehow in danger of not being able to reproduce unless we had certain characteristics.

As far as changes in DNA, this may be attributed to random variations as well as the genes of your parents

 

and here were my questions,

A- Is it random changes or when facing danger? random is random while to face the danger you have to plan on purpose?

B- The scientists did discover that the immunity system is the one system responsible for attacking the different dangers that attacks our bodies, they discovered too the different parts of it and the mechanism it works by. Now what system in the human body will sense the fatal danger, and how to figure out if that requires a specific changes in the DNA?

C- as I understand that danger have to stay in the same manner and severity for 100,000s of years (you just told me it's billions of years) to began to do such evolution, how would the next generations have an idea that the previous one suffered a specific danger?

the questions are still applicable.

 

Death, What may explain these processes to stop "Death", For some one who seems young, strong and fit, and who have every available medical test tells he is just very well?

 

More gibberish showing that you did not care to read anything I said.

we need a judge, here too. In other words, do you believe that there are some death cases that the doctors have no physical explanation for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do You mean, you don't care about how the first cell came to life?

Or how to bring dead cell to life?

 

These things have nothing to do with evolution.

i can see it like that if there is no first cell, there is no evolution

 

Like I said, we already know that a cell can come to be by purely natural means. We also know all of the functions of a cell and hence understand why we cannot bring a dead cell back to life.

Alhamdo llelah, we, the Moslems, know too. because Allah said so, the human is so weak to create a fly or to create a cell, or to bring a dead body to life or even to know the secret of life (the spirit).

 

I hope you actually care to read what I said this time around.

I red every word you wrote, while you may like that theory, to the extend you think any one have to have the same belief about it. or may be a clutural and language difference

 

have a nice day/night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOOOOOOOOOOO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will you change your beliefs once we can create a cell?

NO, and they will not.

 

would you change your believe when scientists couldn't create a cell?

Edited by AHMAD_73

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution has been discussed quite a few times on the Forum, There is a whole section on Evolution, please check the link.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showforum=284.html&"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showforum=284.html&[/url]

 

Salaams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem seems to be in your belief, not mine. Why do you think their still many (if not most) of the biologists are believers? Although they surely understand what you are trying to explain, many times better than you. You are just following the Atheist branch of the scientists not the mere science. It is the belief, friend.

 

You explained what is called natural selection (relative probabilities of a certain species with a relative advantage to survive in a certain circumstances), and that's seems logic. That may requires a relative long time and that's seems logic too. Then abruptly you added another time to have a new species out of the old, and here is the problem. how to have the new genes, what organs will detect the circumstances, how to know the needed new features, what mechanism will create the new genes, how to change DNA in such direction, ….?

 

 

Did you discover this yourself or red it in a scientific book?

How did you calculate the risk probabilities in such issue?

What elese is un-professional in the human design? Do you think the (Appendix ) is an usless extra part?

 

It could be a self content punishment for those who don't follow the designer orders. For those who practice incest and different types of adultery that mixes the lineages. For those who produce a cheep kind chemicals, as drugs and fertilizers. For hose who used the nuclear weapons and the exhausted Uranium in the their weapons

 

I don't know where you get your statistics, but somewhere around the order of 90% of biologists and similar percent of all scientists are not religious.

I cannot believe you still don't understand. WE define species, nature doesn't. There's never a point where you can say, hey, that's a different species from the generation before it! Imagine staring at the hour hand of the clock. When can you ever say, it is moving right now! Never, it is way to slow. Fast forward the process (look at the second hand) and you will see great changes.

Your questions about organs, genes, etc are all results of natural selection.

Evolution is a fact and it is perfectly logical. Obviously I did not discover evolution, if that was your question.

Yes the appendix is useless. This is additional proof of evolution.

Speaking of incest, how did we get here if it all started with Adam and Eve? Or how about after Noah's flood?

 

 

i can see it like that if there is no first cell, there is no evolution

 

Okay, if there was no first cell, then there was evolution. Since there was evolution, it logically follows that there was a first cell (or a few first cells). What's your point?

 

 

NO, and they will not.

 

would you change your believe when scientists couldn't create a cell?

 

No one is saying scientists have to be able to create a cell in order for evolution to be true. In fact it has nothing to do with evolution. P.S. scientists have demonstrated in the laboratory that everything necessary to create a cell may occur naturally.

 

Evolution has been discussed quite a few times on the Forum, There is a whole section on Evolution, please check the link.

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showforum=284.html&"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showforum=284.html&[/url]

 

Salaams.

 

Sounds good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would the first human look like? Was the physiology of the first human like that of humans today?

When did the first human exist?

 

For any answer which refers to other sources, please cite them. I'd like to read what you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would the first human look like? Was the physiology of the first human like that of humans today?

When did the first human exist?

 

For any answer which refers to other sources, please cite them. I'd like to read what you read.

 

If you want to do reading, read (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_talkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_talkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url] which talks about misconceptions about evolution.

There was no one first human. That's not how evolution works. Read the website to learn more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you want to do reading, read (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_talkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_talkorigins(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/[/url] which talks about misconceptions about evolution.

There was no one first human. That's not how evolution works. Read the website to learn more.

 

I was hoping you could provide a summary to those answers for members of the forum. You seem to make others do summaries, I'm sure you are a gentleman to do the same. It is why I asked questions. I already expect what the answer would be if I answered it. :sl:

 

You did however answer one question. Were there "several firsts?" or was there a neverending continuity. With the split from old hominids to the humans of today, was there a distinguishing characteristic that made humans, human? Or is every aspect of the lineage, however far it goes back, also human? Even the website you posted uses the phrase "human ancestor" which suggests there was a "first."

 

So.. multiple firsts or never a first?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was hoping you could provide a summary to those answers for members of the forum. You seem to make others do summaries, I'm sure you are a gentleman to do the same. It is why I asked questions. I already expect what the answer would be if I answered it. :sl:

 

You did however answer one question. Were there "several firsts?" or was there a neverending continuity. With the split from old hominids to the humans of today, was there a distinguishing characteristic that made humans, human? Or is every aspect of the lineage, however far it goes back, also human? Even the website you posted uses the phrase "human ancestor" which suggests there was a "first."

 

So.. multiple firsts or never a first?

 

I did answer your questions. By answering the first question I invalidated the rest. What else would I summarize?

 

Species are arbitrarily defined by humans. You can never point to a person in the past and say, that's human, but the father of this person is not human. The change is gradual. In the same way you cannot point out just when the hour hand is moving.

 

I would say multiple firsts, but again there is no specific generation where you could point and say that's human. There are general spans of time where we classify our ancestors as human or prehuman. It's defined by us, not by nature. There were minor changes that accumulated over time so it would really be practically impossible to point to a first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What would the first human look like? Was the physiology of the first human like that of humans today?

 

I don't quite know what 'physiology' means, but there is in Bukhari:

 

vol 4 book 55, 543

 

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "Allah created Adam, making him 60 cubits tall. When He created him, He said to him, "Go and greet that group of angels, and listen to their reply, for it will be your greeting (salutation) and the greeting (salutations of your offspring." So, Adam said (to the angels), As-Salamu Alaikum (i.e. Peace be upon you). The angels said, "As-salamu Alaika wa Rahmatu-l-lahi" (i.e. Peace and Allah's Mercy be upon you). Thus the angels added to Adam's salutation the expression, 'Wa Rahmatu-l-lahi,' Any person who will enter Paradise will resemble Adam (in appearance and figure). People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation.

 

The phrase "People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation" does seem to imply a literal interpretation of Adam's height being 60 cubits (about 30 metres). Therefore does the fossil record of human bones support this?

 

Additionally, in Bukhari I also found this:

 

Volume 6, Book 60, Number 457:

 

Narrated Al--Amash:

 

Abu Huraira said, "Allah's Apostle said, 'Between the two sounds of the trumpet, there will be forty." Somebody asked Abu Huraira, "Forty days?" But he refused to reply. Then he asked, "Forty months?" He refused to reply. Then he asked, "Forty years?" Again, he refused to reply. Abu Huraira added. "Then (after this period) Allah will send water from the sky and then the dead bodies will grow like vegetation grows, There is nothing of the human body that does not decay except one bone; that is the little bone at the end of the coccyx of which the human body will be recreated on the Day of Resurrection." (See Hadith No. 338)

 

Since other very ancient bones have been found, how does this fit in with this hadith which states that only the coccyx bone does not decay? Have coccyx bones been found in partial decay?

 

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't quite know what 'physiology' means, but there is in Bukhari:

The phrase "People have been decreasing in stature since Adam's creation" does seem to imply a literal interpretation of Adam's height being 60 cubits (about 30 metres). Therefore does the fossil record of human bones support this?

 

Additionally, in Bukhari I also found this:

Since other very ancient bones have been found, how does this fit in with this hadith which states that only the coccyx bone does not decay? Have coccyx bones been found in partial decay?

 

Richard

 

I guess this may be more fit for my "Quran Interpretation" thread even though it's Hadith. In theory it is possible to interpret these metaphorically, but it really doesn't allow itself to be interpreted that way. Of course another objection may be the context/reliability of the Hadith, and that's just a different story. I think overall there is just an extravagant creation story in Islam which is extremely opposed to actual evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think overall there is just an extravagant creation story in Islam which is extremely opposed to actual evidence.

 

I quoted about Adam's 60 cubit height being symbolic. Indeed, the ancient Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation stories are fantastic if you know what you're looking for: they are descriptions of Solomon's temple (or the earlier tabernacle)!

 

See this post for more:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&showtopic=737413&view=findpost&p=1247520"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&sh...t&p=1247520[/url]

 

Flat earth? Sky like a tent? Yep - it's all true, but it is not talking about this world!!

 

I can prove that the ancients ascribed the creation stories to the temple and not to this world. I'll post in the (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=737980&hl="]Quran Interpretation[/url] topic soon.

 

Richard

:sl:

PS. Perhaps the talk of the coccyx bone might be symbolic. I'll have to ask a theologian friend of mine, who is very much into this 'temple theology'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QUOTE(atheism101 [at] Feb 7 2012, 04:22 AM)

I think overall there is just an extravagant creation story in Islam which is extremely opposed to actual evidence.

 

 

I quoted about Adam's 60 cubit height being symbolic. Indeed, the ancient Judeo-Christian-Islamic creation stories are fantastic if you know what you're looking for: they are descriptions of Solomon's temple (or the earlier tabernacle)!

 

See this post for more:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&showtopic=737413&view=findpost&p=1247520"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?s=&sh...t&p=1247520[/url]

 

Flat earth? Sky like a tent? Yep - it's all true, but it is not talking about this world!!

 

I can prove that the ancients ascribed the creation stories to the temple and not to this world. I'll post in the (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=737980&hl="]Quran Interpretation[/url] topic soon.

 

Richard

######style_emoticons/default/smile.gif[/img]

PS. Perhaps the talk of the coccyx bone might be symbolic. I'll have to ask a theologian friend of mine, who is very much into this 'temple theology'.

 

So as I understand it, Richard, you agree with the theory of evolution but do not believe this invalidates religion? In this case this is certainly more for the "Quran Interpretation" thread. We'll continue this there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Religious people are relying on a fallacy that

 

disproving evolution = proving god/creation

 

No. You can spend your entire life debating why evolution is wrong, but that won't prove that god did it. More importantly, it won't even prove that your particular god did it. Why does it have to be the abrahamic god? It could have been an eastern-religion deity like vishnu, or an extinct-religion's god like Thor or even the FSM! Since there's no proof for god, it could have been anyone or anything; there are literally infinite fictional possibilities to choose from!

 

2) No one cares about evolution. Even atheists like me who accept evolution don't really care about it. It doesn't help me in my day-to-day life or anything; it's just a scientific concept that I learned about, said 'OK that's cool' and moved on.

 

This brings me to my next point: the real reason creationists attack evolution is because they feel it threatens their faith and thus their happiness. But as I said before, believers, disproving evolution does not equal proving god. If you want to find religious comfort, you need to look within religion. If you think your faith is undermined and you're uncomfortable about it, then maybe it's time to re-assess your faith and maybe your life as a whole.

 

3) Arguing over evolution: it's like beating a dead horse. It's been accepted for over 150 years now by more than 99% of western scientists and has more proof than you can shake a stick at. There's no point debating with creationists because there's two types:

1. those who actually want to learn about evolution because they realized their creationist beliefs were wrong --> just go to wikipedia.

2. those who just want to argue endlessly --> i'm too old for this; i've got other things to do.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3) Arguing over evolution: it's like beating a dead horse. It's been accepted for over 150 years now by more than 99%[using large font size is not allowed] of western scientists and has more proof than you can shake a stick at.

Peace.

peace

as you said, no need to argue about such theory, but my point is, can we make the percentage you mentioned either 89.98% or 99.03%. i have 99% fobia since that was the same percentage our former president used to won his falsy elections.

 

BTW, from where did you get this percentage?

what do you thik about incest from your point of view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, from where did you get this percentage?

what do you thik about incest from your point of view?

 

0_____o i don't even..

 

1) I can't remember what link i looked at but here (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_ncse(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/creationism/polls-surveys"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_ncse(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/creationism/polls-surveys[/url] shows a list of polls about various subjects. You can look at 'Polls on Evolution' and go from there. Personally, I don't rely on statistics. In fact i regret saying 99% of scientists support evolution. It's not about how many people accept or people's opinions; it's about the underlying evidence.

 

2) Incest is not right, at all. I don't what you guys in egypt are doing. i know you can get pretty desperate with the whole cultural-sexual-oppression thing going on but keep it out of your relatives all right?

 

peace.

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


×