Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Absolute truth

Introduction To Evolution

Recommended Posts

"... the evidence supporting descent with modification ... is both overwhelming and compelling."

Many Darwinists wonder how we could possibly deny the 'fact of evolution'. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria 'evolving' to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying people possibly not see this? The only explanation, Darwinists say, is that we are willingly ignorant of the truth.

However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard scientist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that we deny them is a misrepresentation of our position.

A net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination of genes in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain.

Define evolution !

Evolutionists usually define their theory as 'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'. But these definitions are oversimplified.

The theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual.

In much the same way, we must add the 'instructions' which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed microbe-like common ancestor. These instructions must be
entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA 'letters' of our common ancestor must change to the three billion 'letters' of humans.

The Real Definition according to neo-darwinism:

'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.

'Change over time', 'descent with modification', and 'a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time' are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor.

So why does this matter?

Fallacy of equivocation:

Evolutionists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word 'evolution' and what facts he has to support this. No doubt 'evolution' will mean 'change over time' and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which everyone entirely agree with).

To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required).
This is illogical to say the least.
One of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome (gene version).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Fallacy of Reification

Evidence' is an abstract property that must be interpreted to have meaning.

For instance, a pile of bones in the ground (evidence) has no meaning. But scientists can interpret this evidence to come up with a belief about how the animal lived or died.

Using it in an argument is a logical fallacy. Unfortunately, this is what evolutionists commonly do. For instance, one might say "The evidence says evolution is true". The evidence can say nothing — only with an interpretation of that evidence can one determine if evolution were possible (an interpretation does not determine absolute truth).

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mechanisms ( of changes in allele frequencies NOT darwinism, read above)

1- Natural selection:

  • Heritable variation exists within populations of organisms.
  • Organisms produce more progeny than can survive.
  • These offspring vary in their ability to survive and reproduce.

These conditions produce competition between organisms for survival and reproduction. Consequently, organisms with traits that give them an advantage over their competitors pass these advantageous traits on,
while traits that do not confer an advantage are not passed on to the next generation.
Natural selection can sometimes be a tautology (a statement that is true by virtue of its logical form, rather than by the substance of the statement),  It means "survival of the fittest". Who is the fittest? Those that survive. Who survive? The fittest.
 The general characteristics of natural selection are:

  • Limited: It can only select from existing traits, and cannot create new traits;
  • Rapid: It can adapt a species to new environmental conditions within a few generations;
  • Increases Specialization: Natural selection adapts organisms to particular environments or niches.
  • Decreases Diversity: Traits disadvantageous in a particular environment (although potentially advantageous in another environment) are lost, leaving a less diverse gene pool narrowly suited to its environment.

2- Mutation:
A mutation is any heritable change in DNA sequence (DNA errors) that contributes to genetic variability.

Mutations, Mechanism Of Evolution ?!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

3- Genetic drift
It is the establishment of certain alleles due to random sampling (sampling error) of the gene pool leading to the net decrease in genetic variability and heterozygosity over time.
Genetic Drift is a stocastic or random genetic process.
In each generation, some individuals may, just by chance, leave behind a few more descendents (and genes, of course!) than other individuals. The genes of the next generation will be the genes of the “lucky” individuals, not necessarily the healthier or “better” individuals.
Heterozygosity is the degree to which an individual or population has different genes at the same locus. For example, an individual with two genes for blue eyes is homozygous, while an individual with one gene for blue eyes and one gene for brown eyes is heterozygous.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

4-Genetic draft (hitchhiking=selective sweep):

Some neutral genes are genetically linked to others that are under selection.
To understand, imagine that a new advantageous mutation (X) occurs on Chromosome 4, in the middle of gene versions P, Q, and R. In genetic terms, we would say that the mutation and those genes are linked — that is, they are close together on the same chromosome. The new mutation is so beneficial that its carrier leaves lots of offspring — many of whom also carry the mutation and the other linked genes.
Over many generations, natural selection increases the frequency of mutation X, and because they are physically attached to X, gene versions P, Q, and R come along for the ride (i.e., "hitchhike" to high frequency). Of course, as X spreads, recombination occasionally occurs between it and its neighboring genes, breaking down this tight association somewhat. We begin to see X in association with different combinations of gene versions (e.g., with r instead of R). If we examine the population at the end of this process of natural selection, we will see mutation X at high frequency, often occurring alongside the same set of gene versions (P, Q, and R), and less frequently alongside other gene versions (p, q, and r).

Linkage disequilibrium describes a situation in which some combinations of genes or genetic markers occur more or less frequently in a population than would be expected from their distances apart.

Scientists apply this concept when searching for a gene that may cause a particular disease. They do this by comparing the occurrence of a specific DNA sequence with the appearance of a disease. When they find a high correlation between the two, they know they are getting closer to finding the appropriate gene sequence.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

5- Migration (Gene flow)


Gene flow is the transfer of alleles from one population to another population through immigration of individuals. In this example, one of the birds from population A immigrates to population B, which has less of the dominant alleles, and through mating incorporates its alleles in into the other population.

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

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Absolute truth
      This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
      Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
      You need to educate yourself on biology...

      Wait !


      Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
      But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
    • By Saracen21stC
      By Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com

      Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains
      Neanderthals' keen vision may explain why they couldn't cope with environmental change and died out, despite having the same sized brains as modern humans, new research suggests.
      The findings, published today (March 12) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that Neanderthals developed massive visual regions in their brains to compensate for Europe's low light levels. That, however, reduced the brain space available for social cognition.
      "We have a social brain, whereas Neanderthals appear to have a visual brain," said Clive Gamble, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study.
      As a result, the extinct hominids had smaller social and trading networks to rely on when conditions got tough. That may have caused Neanderthals to die off around 35,000 years ago.
      Brain size riddle
      Just how smart Neanderthals were has been a long-standing debate.
      "Either they get regarded as lumbering brutes, or the other side says, 'No, they weren't that stupid. They had enormous brains, so they must have been as smart as we are,'" said study co-author Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Oxford.
      To help solve the riddle, Dunbar and his colleagues looked at 13 Neanderthal skull fossils dating from 25,000 to 75,000 years ago and compared them with 32 anatomically modern human skeletons. The researchers noticed that some of the Neanderthal fossils had much larger eye sockets, and thus eyes, than do modern humans. [10 Odd Facts About the Brain]
      Low lighting
      The team concluded that Neanderthals used their oversized eyes to survive in the lower-light levels in Europe, where the northern latitude means fewer of the sun's rays hit the Earth. (Modern humans also tend to have slightly bigger eyes and visual systems at higher latitudes than those living in lower latitudes, where light levels are higher.) The researchers hypothesized that Neanderthals must, therefore, also have had large brain regions devoted to visual processing.
      And in fact, Neanderthal skulls suggest that the extinct hominids had elongated regions in the back of their brains, called the "Neanderthal bun," where the visual cortex lies.
      "It looks like a Victorian lady's head," Dunbar told LiveScience.
      Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes.
      By calculating how much brain space was needed for other tasks, the team concluded that Neanderthals had relatively less space for the frontal lobe, a brain region that controls social thinkingand cultural transmission.
      Isolated and dying
      The findings explain why Neanderthals didn't ornament themselves or make art, Gamble told LiveScience.
      These results may also help explain the Neanderthals' extinction, Dunbar said.
      Smaller social brain regions meant smaller social networks. In fact, artifacts from Neanderthal sites suggest they had just a 30-mile (48.3 kilometers) trading radius, while human trade networks at the time could span 200 miles (321.9 km), Dunbar said.
      With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said.
    • By Absolute truth
      A) Karyotype
      According to darwinism, human has a microbe-like grandfather, It kept reproducing till we found an imaginary common ancestor for human and chimp.
      This tale was confronted by the fact that human has 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 !
      Looks more or less similar ?!
      Let's have a look at creatures that have the same number of chromosomes-just like human !
      - Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46

      - Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)

      - Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)

      - Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)

      - Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)

      - Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)

      - Beach vole (Microtus breweri)

      - Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

      - Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus/Madoqua kirkii )

      - Grey/common vole (Microtus arvalis)

      - Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)

      - Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)

      - Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)

      - Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

      Sable antelope  (Kafue, Zambia)
      On the other hand these species also have 48 chromosomes, just like chimpanzee.
      - European hare/jackrabbit (Lepus europeus)




      It's obvious that none is a supposed relative neither for human nor chimpanzee !
      In fact, the number of chromosomes doesn't hold much importance. What really counts is the genetic information itself.
    • By Absolute truth
      One of the most popular alleged evidences for evolution on the internet is Endogenous RetroViral sequences (ERVs). Evolutionists think that a type of virus called a 'retrovirus', once inserted genetic information into one of our ape ancestors' genome. So how is this evidence for evolution?
      Scientists have noticed that chimps and humans have ERV genetic sequences at very similar points in our DNA. And so the story goes: our common ancestor acquired these ERVs and since humans and chimps are closely related, we should have them in similar spots in our genomes. We do. If we and chimps didn't evolve from a common ancestor (which first acquired the ERVs), how is it possible that we and chimps have ERVs in almost precisely the same locations? The only plausible explanation, evolutionists say, is evolution.
      But this is far from the truth. If we can show that ERVs are not the product of retroviruses, this evidence for evolution would fall flat.
      ERVS are simply more or less similar to retrovirus genome:
      The first problem with this argument is that it’s hard to tell what an ERV is when you meet one. It doesn’t come with a tag attached saying: ” This is an ERV “. It could be that these genes something completely different. That is because if a virus is embedded in it’s complete form, its almost impossible to pass it down to further generations.
      ERVS are Functional
      If ERVs are found to have function, it would be highly likely that they didn't originate from retroviruses. It would be inconceivable that viral non-functional ERVs somehow became functional. Evidence has surfaced that they do have function.
      "We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1,743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs)."(Conley, A.B., Piriyapongsa, J. and Jordan, I.K., "Retroviral promoters in the human genome," Bioinformatics 24(14):1563, 2008)
      The previous quote is very telling. There are many thousands of ERV sequences in our genome and in that of chimps. Does this mean that all are beneficial?
      "Our analysis revealed that retroviral sequences in the human genome encode tens-of-thousands of active promoters; transcribed ERV sequences correspond to 1.16% of the human genome sequence ... and PET tags that capture transcripts initiated from ERVs cover 22.4% of the genome."("Ancient Retroviruses Spurred Evolution Of Gene Regulatory Networks In Humans And Other Primates," ScienceDaily, University of California - Santa Cruz, Nov. 15, 2007.)

      As we can see, it has been discovered that ERVs aid transcription in one fifth of the human genome!
      "We report that human ERVs actively shape the p53 transcriptional network in a species-specific manner ... At least one ERV insertion likely reshaped the transcriptional landscape of its surrounding genomic area and was instrumental in creating a new gene that became part of the human-specific p53 regulatory network ... We discovered a unique distribution pattern of p53 sites within repetitive sequences of the human genome, and several ERV families emerged as being substantially enriched for p53 sites in their LTRs."("Retroviral promoters in the human genome,2008"
    • By Absolute truth

      Introduction      BACTERIAL VARIATION

      Any change in the genotype of a bacterium or its phenotype is known as variation. Genotypic variation can occur as a result of changes in the genes by way of mutation, loss or acquisition of new genetic elements.
      These variations are heritable. Phenotypic variations are seen temporarily when bacteria are grown under certain environmental conditions. These variations are not heritable.

      Heritable variations: 
      A gene will mutate spontaneously, about once in a hundred million cell divisions. Such bacteria are called mutants. Most of these mutants die, but a when a mutant can adapt itself to the environment more readily; it may emerge as a new variant. Chromosomal mutations may lead to Emergence of drug resistance in bacteria. Examples include methicillin resistance in Staphylococcus aureus, Multi-drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis.

      Mechanisms of horizontal gene transfer (HGT) in bacteria
      Some bacteria have ability to uptake naked DNA fragment from the surrounding environment. When such a DNA confers new property to the bacterium, it is termed transformation. Change from R form of Streptococcus pneumoniae to S form as demonstrated by Griffith is due to transformation.

      Transfer of genetic material (usually plasmids) from one bacterium to another through the mediation of sex pili. Any property that is coded on a transmissible plasmid can be transferred to a recipient bacterium. Properties such drug resistance mediated by beta-lactamases, bacteriocin production etc can be transferred by conjugation.

      Transfer of genetic material through mediation of bacteriophage is known as transduction. Only those strains of Corynebacterium diphtheriae that are infected by a beta phage are toxigenic. Change in O antigen in Salmonella (S. anatum->S. newington-> S.minneapolis) is because of lysogenic phage.

      Variations in the flagellar antigens in Salmonella are due to transposons. Similar gene rearrangements may result in antigenic variations, as in Neisseria gonorrhoeae and Borrelia recurrentis. 

      Non-heritable variations: 
      A variation in the phenotype of a microorganism, where the genetic constitution remains unchanged is a non-heritable variation. Such variations are seen due to a change in environmental conditions and such variations are neither permanent nor heritable. They may revert back to normal state when the conditions are restored.
      Some examples are:
      Loss of flagella in S.typhi when grown in phenol agar (H-O variation) Pleomorphism (variation in shape) in old cultures Lack of pigment production by S.aureus in anaerobic conditions Formation of spheroplasts and protoplasts V-W variation in Salmonella typhi that is characterized by loss of Vi antigen S-R variation in Salmonella typhi that is characterized by loss of O antigen and change in colony morphology to rough type. Production of flagella in Listeria monocytogenes occurs at temperature less than 20oC   Last edited in June 2006 http://www.microrao.com/micronotes/variation.htm