Evolution Poll
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Unfortunately, the first sentence contradicts the last. Don't you understand there is no concept of creation in the minds of people who push the theory of evolution down our throats? The Evolution theory that you are defending discredits ALL FORMS OF CREATION. It has got nothing to do with "Quranic evolution", even if true.
JK- You seemed to be confused. Evolution can be mised by atheists, yes, just like Hitler misused religion to justify his brutal acts. Please read up on "theistic evolution" to see that evolution in essence by no means argues against GOD. Infact it proves GOD's Power even more.
Concerning pseudogenes, I gave the example of a locked box and its comparison to the vestigial organs. It took more than 100 years to realize that the vestigial organs do have functions. How long has it been since pseudogenes have been discovered? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
JK- What do you say of animals like the "platypus" then, a clear intermediate between retiles and mammals? It lays eggs and suckles its young. Why do marine mammals have more similarities with other land mammals than with sharks and why do they swim using the up and down movement instead of ns the original fish movement sideways? The whale has a reduced functional pelvis which is homologous with certain land dwelling mammalian hind legs which certainly which used them for a more useful purpose. Then there is the mole. I quote from wikis "mole" article
The eyes of moles and of some burrowing rodents are rudimentary in size, and in some cases are quite covered by skin and fur. This state of the eyes is probably due to gradual reduction from disuse, but aided perhaps by natural selection. In South America, a burrowing rodent, the tuco-tuco, or Ctenomys, is even more subterranean in its habits than the mole; and I was assured by a Spaniard, who had often caught them, that they were frequently blind. One which I kept alive was certainly in this condition, the cause, as appeared on dissection, having been inflammation of the nictitating membrane. As frequent inflammation of the eyes must be injurious to any animal, and as eyes are certainly not necessary to animals having subterranean habits, a reduction in their size, with the adhesion of the eyelids and growth of fur over them, might in such case be an advantage; and if so, natural selection would aid the effects of disuse. (Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Laws of Variation)
I asked you some simple questions. Do evolutionists have a sensible answer to these questions? The books on evolution will never delve on the "how" like how the purported transition from water to land took place. Please show me a text book that intelligenly explains this!
JK- Man you really need to readup on evolution. Please visit
http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm
http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040402070804.htm
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3589133.stm
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.htmlYou need to realize that evolutionists, the majority of whom are athiests, have some strong support from the friends of satan. All of the so called "reputed" scientific magazines and journals like Nature and National Geographic are controlled by the followers of satan that try to present this theory as a proven fact.
JK- Im not sure where you got this from. As i said read up on "theistic evolution". Most scientists in my knowledge support that view and it is the only reasonable one.
Evolution that you are supporting is based on a materialistic philosophy that REJECTS the notion of Allah.
peace.
JK- Man i used to think jus like you. Check out my previous posts on evolution on this forum. However since i now have overwhelming evidence that evolution is true and that is the only thing that can actually give +ve evidence for the Oneness of GOD, i cannot deny it. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
JK- You seemed to be confused. Evolution can be mised by atheists, yes, just like Hitler misused religion to justify his brutal acts. Please read up on "theistic evolution" to see that evolution in essence by no means argues against GOD. Infact it proves GOD's Power even more.
Am I. Please look at the title of this thread. This is the first time you are introducing the term "theistic evolution"!
Perhaps you need clarify how your beliefs (theistic evolution) are different from the dogma that is called the "theory of evolution. Please don't post links as I want you to tell me your OWN beliefs.JK- What do you say of animals like the "platypus" then, a clear intermediate between retiles and mammals? It lays eggs and suckles its young. Why do marine mammals have more similarities with other land mammals than with sharks and why do they swim using the up and down movement instead of ns the original fish movement sideways? The whale has a reduced functional pelvis which is homologous with certain land dwelling mammalian hind legs which certainly which used them for a more useful purpose. Then there is the mole. I quote from wikis "mole" article
An animal that lays eggs and suckles its young is a clear intermediate between reptiles and mammals????? Are you that naive? What scientific principles were used to draw this conclusion? A whale has a reduced pelvis so this proves it is a transitional form???? Please ...... This is not science. They are all highly developed animals with complete systems. You need to think through what you mean by macroevolution.
JK- Man you really need to readup on evolution. Please visit
http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060406100543.htm
http//www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040402070804.htm
http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3589133.stm
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#amph1
http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.htmlAll these aricles talk about is finding a bone fossil. Then notice how they draw a totally speculative drawing beside the fossil giving the impression that this is the fossil of a transitional form. I stopped falling for that long time ago.
And I wish you would'nt quote from talkorigins website. It is NOT a website that supports theistic evolution.
JK- Im not sure where you got this from. As i said read up on "theistic evolution". Most scientists in my knowledge support that view and it is the only reasonable one.
I don't think Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould share your beliefs. Which scientists are you talking about?
JK- Man i used to think jus like you. Check out my previous posts on evolution on this forum. However since i now have overwhelming evidence that evolution is true and that is the only thing that can actually give +ve evidence for the Oneness of GOD, i cannot deny it. GOD Bless!
I asked you a few simple questions in an earlier post but you provided an answer for only 1 question.
- At what point in this evolutionary game, a male and a female of all evolving species is created?
- how does evolution explain reproduction and growth of species?
Kindly do not refer me to links. If there is something that supports your argument, quote it and then provide the link.
I would like YOU to think through the material you send me. thanks and peace. -
Peace "god1quran1",
An animal that lays eggs and suckles its young is a clear intermediate between reptiles and mammals????? Are you that naive? What scientific principles were used to draw this conclusion?
A whale has a reduced pelvis so this proves it is a transitional form???? Please ...... This is not science. They are all highly developed animals with complete systems. You need to think through what you mean by macroevolution.JK- The scientififc evidence is the pattern of reduction and adaption where one exact same organ while used more efficiently in a previous ancestor is used less in the current one. I hope you dont make the foolish claim that we ought to observe macro evo in the lab. For if you do then by the same token one can also deny the big bang, thus devaluing verse 2130 of the Quran.
All these aricles talk about is finding a bone fossil. Then notice how they draw a totally speculative drawing beside the fossil giving the impression that this is the fossil of a transitional form. I stopped falling for that long time ago.
JK- Man your totally influenced by creationists. There is a pattern of relation. I suppose you dont even believe in code-19 in the Quran or do you? Scientists study the patterns of various fossils by carefully analysing the structure and then can tell where reduction or deduction took place. This is how it works.
And I wish you would'nt quote from talkorigins website. It is NOT a website that supports theistic evolution.
I don't think Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould share your beliefs. Which scientists are you talking about?JK- Please see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Here youll find proponents of theistic evolution
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Proponents_of_theistic_evolutionI asked you a few simple questions in an earlier post but you provided an answer for only 1 question.
- At what point in this evolutionary game, a male and a female of all evolving species is created?
- how does evolution explain reproduction and growth of species?
Kindly do not refer me to links. If there is something that supports your argument, quote it and then provide the link.
I would like YOU to think through the material you send me. thanks and peace.JK- Asexual to Sexual reproduction has indeed been a problem for evolution in Darwin's time but now scienists have good theories to explain it
Sexual reproduction evolved and led to what we think of it today; that is meiosis followed by fertilization. Gametes (i.e. meiosis products) are produced in the most primitive eukaryotes living today protists.Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via genetic recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was. The most primative form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.
Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g. yeast, filamentous fungi). Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.
A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primative organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.
My own theory regarding this issue is that GOD has put in nature a pairing process. This can be seen from the very start like atoms having proton and electron, then we have an anti particle for every particle. Hence whilst these evolved to the gene level, at some time in the macro output a split occured and it became a genetic pair also.
http//dorakmt.tripod.com/evolution/sreprod.html
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_sexual_reproduction
http//www.nature.com/nrg/focus/evolsex/index.htmlGOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
JK- The scientififc evidence is the pattern of reduction and adaption where one exact same organ while used more efficiently in a previous ancestor is used less in the current one. I hope you dont make the foolish claim that we ought to observe macro evo in the lab. For if you do then by the same token one can also deny the big bang, thus devaluing verse 2130 of the Quran.
I am not sure how this answers my concerns in the earlier post. You cannot give me an example of a mosaic form with fully developed systems and then say that it is evidence of evolution. When I asked you to think through what you mean by macroevolution, I meant in terms of individual physiological systems. For example if mutation and natural selection are responsible for something as complex as the eye, how did evolution know which direction to go. Do you know the probability of taking the correct direction everytime keeping in view the number of subsystems an eye has ?
Without outside intervention how can there be gradual evolution that we end up extremely complex systems, like the nose, ear, the brain, etc, etc,??? To get to somewhere you need to know where you are going! Does evolution explain this. I think NOT.Even if we are to believe in this absurd notion of " pattern of reduction and adaption where one exact same organ while used more efficiently in a previous ancestor is used less in the current one", the evolutionists need to explain how that organ developed in the first place!
JK- Man your totally influenced by creationists. There is a pattern of relation. I suppose you dont even believe in code-19 in the Quran or do you? Scientists study the patterns of various fossils by carefully analysing the structure and then can tell where reduction or deduction took place. This is how it works.
It is not "reduction or deduction" it is speculation. Read through the fine print and you will find sentences containing words like "may have", "could have".
I am not sure how this 19 theory has got anything to do with evolution theory!JK- Please see http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html
Here youll find proponents of theistic evolution
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Proponents_of_theistic_evolutionI have read them. They only claim to believe in evolution and then attribute it to a universal creator. It makes no sense.
JK- Asexual to Sexual reproduction has indeed been a problem for evolution in Darwin's time but now scienists have good theories to explain it
Sexual reproduction evolved and led to what we think of it today; that is meiosis followed by fertilization. Gametes (i.e. meiosis products) are produced in the most primitive eukaryotes living today protists.Organisms need to replicate their genetic material in an efficient and reliable manner. The necessity to repair genetic damage is one of the leading theories explaining the origin of sexual reproduction. Diploid individuals can repair a mutated section of its DNA via genetic recombination, since there are two copies of the gene in the cell and one copy is presumed to be undamaged. A mutation in an haploid individual, on the other hand, is more likely to become resident, as the DNA repair machinery has no way of knowing what the original undamaged sequence was. The most primative form of sex may have been one organism with damaged DNA replicating an undamaged strand from a similar organism in order to repair itself.
Another theory is that sexual reproduction originated from selfish parasitic genetic elements that exchange genetic material (that is copies of their own genome) for their transmission and propagation. In some organisms, sexual reproduction has been shown to enhance the spread of parasitic genetic elements (e.g. yeast, filamentous fungi). Bacterial conjugation, a form of genetic exchange that some sources describe as sex, is not a form of reproduction. However, it does support the selfish genetic element theory, as it is propagated through such a "selfish gene", the F-plasmid.;
A third theory is that sex evolved as a form of cannibalism. One primative organism ate another one, but rather than completely digesting it, some of the 'eaten' organism's DNA was incorporated into the 'eater' organism.
Yes evolutionists have all sorts of "Theories" with "may have", "could have" to explain their dogma. I can come up with any theory! Does'nt prove squat.
How about these truths.
Free-Minds And He is the One who created the pair, male and female. 5345
Free-Minds And We created you in pairs? 788
Free-Minds He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. And He sent down to you eight pairs of the livestock. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness's. Such is God your Lord. To Him belongs the sovereignty. There is no god besides Him. How is it then you deviate? 396
There are many more .....
My own theory regarding this issue is that GOD has put in nature a pairing process. This can be seen from the very start like atoms having proton and electron, then we have an anti particle for every particle. Hence whilst these evolved to the gene level, at some time in the macro output a split occured and it became a genetic pair also.
Evolution rejects all forms of outside intervention. You can't have it both ways. Your theory does appear to be consistent with the Quran verses above though.
Peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
I am not sure how this answers my concerns in the earlier post. You cannot give me an example of a mosaic form with fully developed systems and then say that it is evidence of evolution. When I asked you to think through what you mean by macroevolution, I meant in terms of individual physiological systems. For example if mutation and natural selection are responsible for something as complex as the eye, how did evolution know which direction to go. Do you know the probability of taking the correct direction everytime keeping in view the number of subsystems an eye has ?
Without outside intervention how can there be gradual evolution that we end up extremely complex systems, like the nose, ear, the brain, etc, etc,??? To get to somewhere you need to know where you are going! Does evolution explain this. I think NOT.JK- Newer organs develop from previous existing material. You are ehaps referring to Behes irreducible complexity which is nonesnese. The human eye for example had parts which had some other purpose in the past and later became the eye. As to evoiution having no direction that is only seemingly so while scientists do agree that the whole universe is deterministic, though unpredictable, so yes ultimately it is determined that the human be here. Secondly what dio you mean by outside intervention? If you mean that GOD fixed the laws of the universe from the beginning and set the constant which allowed for all life to evolve then thats fine. If your saying that GOD intervened every now and then, changing His laws to create a new life form then that is nonsense and it degrades GOD in that He wouldnt know how to make things come into being by setting up a system at the beginning. Evolution is a much greater proof of GOD's awesome power. Dont confuse it with atheism.
Even if we are to believe in this absurd notion of " pattern of reduction and adaption where one exact same organ while used more efficiently in a previous ancestor is used less in the current one", the evolutionists need to explain how that organ developed in the first place!
JK- It developed because the environment asked for it according to the laws setup by GOD. There are mutations taking place in the DNA, termed as random because their variations are not yet completely understood, and those together with natural slection, whcih is also setup by GOD, allow these organs to evolve at their particular times. I dont see any problems here.
It is not "reduction or deduction" it is speculation. Read through the fine print and you will find sentences containing words like "may have", "could have".
I am not sure how this 19 theory has got anything to do with evolution theory!JK- The "may have could have" is only for those things which scientists are not yet sure about. However there are solid examples which prove evolution is true as ive mentioned and thje reduction and deduction is not part of speculation. It has been shown in whales, dolphins, moles, humans, ostrcihes, etc. In humans for example there are the wisdom teeth which are no longer needed as we got out of the wild and the appendix which although has now become part of the immune system is overall reduced in function as compared to herbivorous mammals. Maybe one day it will disappear entirely.
I have read them. They only claim to believe in evolution and then attribute it to a universal creator. It makes no sense.
JK- Please read bro Arnold Yasin's article on evolution
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13263.0Yes evolutionists have all sorts of "Theories" with "may have", "could have" to explain their dogma. I can come up with any theory! Does'nt prove squat.
JK- And what do creationists have? Do they have facts? Evolutionists have theories supported by empirical evidence from fossils, microbilogy, vestigial structures, homology, etc which all INDEPENDANTLY arrive at the same conclusion i.e. evolution happened. Now could all these sciensits many of them working independently, be wrong? I dont think so. Science is the means GOD gave us to ascertain the truth.
How about these truths.
Free-Minds And He is the One who created the pair, male and female. 5345
Free-Minds And We created you in pairs? 788
Free-Minds He created you from one person, then He made from it its mate. And He sent down to you eight pairs of the livestock. He creates you in the wombs of your mothers, a creation after a creation in three darkness's. Such is God your Lord. To Him belongs the sovereignty. There is no god besides Him. How is it then you deviate? 396
There are many more .....
Evolution rejects all forms of outside intervention. You can't have it both ways. Your theory does appear to be consistent with the Quran verses above though.
Peace.
JK- Evolution is not concerned with outside intervention. As i said GOD setup the system from the beginning and it is running in accordance with His laws. What is possible and i believe is so is that GOD is supplying constant energy at the infinitesimal points of the elementary particles to keep doing what they do. Quantum reserach has shown that individual indeed do act intelligently. This would explain the above verses. He does not however change His Laws every now and then to tweek the system. Theres a clear difference here. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
JK- Newer organs develop from previous existing material. You are ehaps referring to Behes irreducible complexity which is nonesnese. The human eye for example had parts which had some other purpose in the past and later became the eye.
Can I ask you what scientific method did you use to come up with these conclusions? "this from that is not science"! Go down to the cellular level and explain to me your statement "The human eye for example had parts which had some other purpose in the past and later became the eye." Then perhaps you might not find what Behe says nonsense.
As to evoiution having no direction that is only seemingly so while scientists do agree that the whole universe is deterministic, though unpredictable, so yes ultimately it is determined that the human be here.
You need to understand that I am debating biological evolution with you. According to this belief system, mutation is a random process. Are you sure you understand the religious dogma of the evolution priests?
Secondly what dio you mean by outside intervention? If you mean that GOD fixed the laws of the universe from the beginning and set the constant which allowed for all life to evolve then thats fine. If your saying that GOD intervened every now and then, changing His laws to create a new life form then that is nonsense and it degrades GOD in that He wouldnt know how to make things come into being by setting up a system at the beginning. Evolution is a much greater proof of GOD's awesome power. Dont confuse it with atheism.
What I am saying is God designed and created us. There were no random processes involved as suggested by the theory of evolution.
JK- It developed because the environment asked for it according to the laws setup by GOD. There are mutations taking place in the DNA, termed as random because their variations are not yet completely understood, and those together with natural slection, whcih is also setup by GOD, allow these organs to evolve at their particular times. I dont see any problems here.
Please explain to me the law that asks and provides direction so that an organ can "evolve". And where is this law at work now? Yes I know the evolutionists like to hide behind "time" and "incremental changes". How convenient that "no one can see evolution at work because it is so slow"
JK- The "may have could have" is only for those things which scientists are not yet sure about. However there are solid examples which prove evolution is true as ive mentioned and thje reduction and deduction is not part of speculation. It has been shown in whales, dolphins, moles, humans, ostrcihes, etc. In humans for example there are the wisdom teeth which are no longer needed as we got out of the wild and the appendix which although has now become part of the immune system is overall reduced in function as compared to herbivorous mammals. Maybe one day it will disappear entirely.
"Apes possess an appendix but the lower apes do not. It then appears again in mammals such as the Oppussum. How can the evolutionists account for this?"
from
Biologist H. ENoch in Creation and Evolution 1966And why do you want the appendix to "disappear" when it is proven to be not a vestigial organ??? Again the use of "maybe" to promote a dogmatic belief!
JK- Please read bro Arnold Yasin's article on evolution
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13263.0I could not find anything except verses that clear use the word "Khalaq" (created) repeatedly!
By the way you need to see the image and ask the priests of evolution if they have evidence of the monkey evolving into a human or is it just a figment of their imagination!JK- And what do creationists have? Do they have facts? Evolutionists have theories supported by empirical evidence from fossils, microbilogy, vestigial structures, homology, etc which all INDEPENDANTLY arrive at the same conclusion i.e. evolution happened. Now could all these sciensits many of them working independently, be wrong? I dont think so. Science is the means GOD gave us to ascertain the truth.
Unfortunately the evolutionist have theories that are backed by the controlled media that perpetuate their lies. The fraud initiated by Haeckel continues to this day!
What creationists have is a bit of common sense.
- Ever seen a birth of a baby?
- How does evolution explain the soul?
- How does a seed sowed into the ground comes out as a plant the leaves of which then undergo the process of photosynthesis?
I can go on and on ....
Evolution that hides behind the mantra "incremental and gradual changes taking billions of years" cannot explain these dynamic events. The only other alternative is there exists an intelligent creator at work who has created everything in one go.JK- Evolution is not concerned with outside intervention. As i said GOD setup the system from the beginning and it is running in accordance with His laws. What is possible and i believe is so is that GOD is supplying constant energy at the infinitesimal points of the elementary particles to keep doing what they do. Quantum reserach has shown that individual indeed do act intelligently. This would explain the above verses. He does not however change His Laws every now and then to tweek the system. Theres a clear difference here. GOD Bless!
There is no law that explain evolution. God created all the complex life forms in one go. There was no tweaking!
peace
-
You need to understand that I am debating biological evolution with you. According to this belief system, mutation is a random process. Are you sure you understand the religious dogma of the evolution priests?
What I am saying is God designed and created us. There were no random processes involved as suggested by the theory of evolution.
Please explain to me the law that asks and provides direction so that an organ can "evolve". And where is this law at work now? Yes I know the evolutionists like to hide behind "time" and "incremental changes". How convenient that "no one can see evolution at work because it is so slow"See, you yourself doesn't understand evolution. Evolution is not a purely random process. Mutation is random (in terms of fitness) but Natural Selection is not, it is a process that weeds out harmful/disadvantageous variations and preserves beneficial/advantageous variations.
"Apes possess an appendix but the lower apes do not. It then appears again in mammals such as the Oppussum. How can the evolutionists account for this?"
from
Biologist H. ENoch in Creation and Evolution 1966Old source from 40 years ago? Do you actually know what Enoch mean by saying 'apes' and 'lower apes'? Btw the appendix is widespread in a lot of mammals. Cut open a guinea pig and you'll find a large, functional appendix that serves as a fermentation vat.
And why do you want the appendix to "disappear" when it is proven to be not a vestigial organ??? Again the use of "maybe" to promote a dogmatic belief!
Tell me, if it's not vestigial, why people that had their appendix removed stays healthy. The appendix does have some immunological functions but as far as I know it's not a very vital organ, most likely its functions are a remnant of something with more use in the past (for example, a fermentation vat like in guinea pigs).
I could not find anything except verses that clear use the word "Khalaq" (created) repeatedly!
And your understanding of khalaq is how? God magically poofing species into existence one by one? In the Qur'an Khalaq refers to natural processes.
By the way you need to see the image and ask the priests of evolution if they have evidence of the monkey evolving into a human or is it just a figment of their imagination!
Will you consider your position yourself? There are fossils that show the intermediate forms between man and ancient apes. That's evidence. Or you have something in your mind that tells you you mustn't look at evidence?
Unfortunately the evolutionist have theories that are backed by the controlled media that perpetuate their lies. The fraud initiated by Haeckel continues to this day!
No, in fact Haeckel's embryos has been replaced by photographs of comparative embryology, which basically shows the same thing (minus exaggerations).
What creationists have is a bit of common sense.
Not common sense, but an unwillingness to see and consider the evidence.
- Ever seen a birth of a baby?
Um, yes, in a film... But what does this has to do with evolution?
- How does evolution explain the soul?
It doesn't. Evolution doesn't need to explain the soul because it's not evolution material. It's philosophical and theological material.
- How does a seed sowed into the ground comes out as a plant the leaves of which then undergo the process of photosynthesis?
Get a course in Plant Physiology--it will tell you how a seed grow.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
I think bro "Andya" did a marvellous job answering many of your assertions. Id also like to answer some. First regarding the vestigial organs. Vestigial doesnt mean "completely useless" and that is the faulty assumption many creationists have in mind. I think i explained this before. Vestigial means "reduced function". Ofcourse it may be possible for the appendix to becomes smaller in some mammals and popup bigger oin others again but thus would merely indicate a reactivation of certian pseudogenes which i also talked about in another article. Now you asked- Ever seen a birth of a baby?
JK- Yes it is a marvellous process indeed. Neither bro Andya or myself nor any other theistic evolutionist, infact not even an atheistic evolutionist would doubt that. The only difference is how did it get to this stage, by GOD tweeking the system and creating it piece by piece or thorugh a, in my opinion, marvellous process of evolution over the ages controlled by natural selection acting upon "random" mutations and i explained to you clearly that random here simpyl means that one doesnt know why the variations move in such and such a way. I believe ofcourse there is a law why they do so and the apparent chaos/chaotic variations in DNA is merely an illusion. Same goes for quantum mechnics. We just dont understand it yet. Once this law is found evolution will become more marvellous than ever before.
- How does evolution explain the soul?
JK- Taking evolution in general, hence out of biology, the soul too could have evolved in another dimension/universe. My current theory or rather hypotheis is that the human brain evolved so that it can now connect to the dimnension which contains the souls through wormholes but this is at the time only a hypothesis.
- How does a seed sowed into the ground comes out as a plant the leaves of which then undergo the process of photosynthesis
JK- Same as above. The system evolved by mutations and natural selection all controlled by GOD and then you get the marveloous plant and its seeds which allow it to reproduce till this day. GOD Bless!
-
See, you yourself doesn't understand evolution.
I was responding to JK's assertion when he claimed that evolution is somehow a deterministic process. By all means jump into the debate but atleast you must have the courtesy to read the earlier posts!
Is Evolution deterministic?
Evolution is not a purely random process.
I said mutation is a random process. Why are you saying things I never said!
And whether it is "pure" or "impure" does not change the fact that it is a random. That means we are talking probabilities now where there is a possibility of failure
So for example prob of success is a generous 0.99 and in a billion years of "incremental and gradual change" evolution goes though 10000 ( a very small number) steps the probability of success isP = 0.99^10000 = 2.2488^-44
Is the absurdity of evolution theory becoming evident to you or have you made up your mind?
Note The prob of success initially would be very low initially considering that the theory of evolution makes the claim that we started from a single cell, an absurd claim in itself, for it is now clear that the complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all!Mutation is random (in terms of fitness) but Natural Selection is not, it is a process that weeds out harmful/disadvantageous variations and preserves beneficial/advantageous variations.
The question is what guides natural selection? Does it have a consciousness of its own? How does evolution know that a eye or a ear or a heart needs to be "evolved into". How do you even begin to go somewhere when you do not know where to go. These are extremely simple questions yet impossible for the evolutionists to answer. They will always avoid the "how".
"Apes possess an appendix but the lower apes do not. It then appears again in mammals such as the Oppussum. How can the evolutionists account for this?"
from
Biologist H. ENoch in Creation and Evolution 1966Old source from 40 years ago? Do you actually know what Enoch mean by saying 'apes' and 'lower apes'? Btw the appendix is widespread in a lot of mammals. Cut open a guinea pig and you'll find a large, functional appendix that serves as a fermentation vat.
Tell me, if it's not vestigial, why people that had their appendix removed stays healthy. The appendix does have some immunological functions but as far as I know it's not a very vital organ, most likely its functions are a remnant of something with more use in the past (for example, a fermentation vat like in guinea pigs).
Before speculating on the usefulness of a particular organ (which evolutionists have a habit of doing) tell me how an appendix is a vestigial organ when according to your own admission it serves "some immunological functions".
I know. When the list of "vestigial organs" has been reduced from more than 100 to zero over the last 150 years, the evolutionists found it easier to simply change the definition of vestigial organs so from
"An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms"
they revised it to something like
"Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich"
And the guinea pig is NOT our immediate ancestor (according to the theory of evolution). The evolutionists use lots of speculation and fables when explaining macroevolution of organs from the bone fossils remain of our "alleged ancestors."
And your understanding of khalaq is how? God magically poofing species into existence one by one? In the Qur'an Khalaq refers to natural processes.
Khalaq means to create. The theory of evolution rejects creationism. Life is too complex to have been evolved by undergoing "natural processes" and this complexity exists at every level of design. From the sytems level to the molecular level. The timescales at which our physiological systems operate cannot be explained by the evolution nonsense of "incremental, gradual changes taking billions of years."
Will you consider your position yourself? There are fossils that show the intermediate forms between man and ancient apes. That's evidence. Or you have something in your mind that tells you you mustn't look at evidence?
Are you talking about the forgeries, like the Nebraska man, or the piltdown man. The very old history of modern man nullifies the imaginary family tree of evolution theory. The fossils presented as transitional links are either that of humans or apes. The manner in which evolutionists depict drawings of neanderthals from bone fossil remains as half human-half ape is truly amazing! I never knew we could predict the amount of body hair from a few bones.
No, in fact Haeckel's embryos has been replaced by photographs of comparative embryology, which basically shows the same thing (minus exaggerations).
Does it? If they show the "same things", why was there a need to exaggerate in the first place?
I think you are deceiving yourself by being an evolution apologist.Not common sense, but an unwillingness to see and consider the evidence.
Um, yes, in a film... But what does this has to do with evolution?
Yes I know evolutionists have a propensity to avoid simple questions concerning extremely complex occurrences in nature.
It doesn't. Evolution doesn't need to explain the soul because it's not evolution material. It's philosophical and theological material.
Again avoiding simple question that are impossible to answer using the theory of evolution. Let me rephrase. At what point in the imaginary world of evolution did the animal made a conscious decision?
Get a course in Plant Physiology--it will tell you how a seed grow.
Will it tell me how did natural selection inform the first plant coming out of the soil that its leaves will be the primary site of photosynthesis?
peace.
-
JK- Same as above. The system evolved by mutations and natural selection all controlled by GOD and then you get the marveloous plant and its seeds which allow it to reproduce till this day. GOD Bless!
A response picked right out the evolution textbook! Now can we get to the "how" part please.
peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Is Evolution deterministic?
JK- Since the whole universe and its particles are so is evolution in the broad sense. But it is impossible for any human to accurately measure where evolution is gonna go. That is why we say that its relatively indeterminable. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1",
JK- Since the whole universe and its particles are so is evolution in the broad sense. But it is impossible for any human to accurately measure where evolution is gonna go. That is why we say that its relatively indeterminable. GOD Bless!
I am not sure why you continue to mix biological evolution, whose followers follow little to no scientific procedures to validate their theories, with such sciences as cosmology where scientists rountinely use or have used mathematical equations to validate their theories.
peace.
-
Peace "god1quran1"
I am not sure why you continue to mix biological evolution, whose followers follow little to no scientific procedures to validate their theories, with such sciences as cosmology where scientists rountinely use or have used mathematical equations to validate their theories.
peace.
JK- This is EXACTLY the same case with biological evolution. Plz bro, talk to and discuss with some reknown microbiologists or other scientists who have studied the subject before making such statements. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "god1quran1"
peace.
JK- This is EXACTLY the same case with biological evolution. Plz bro, talk to and discuss with some reknown microbiologists or other scientists who have studied the subject before making such statements. GOD Bless!
I am not sure how to respond to this post other than to say that this is a similar response I get when I am debating Islam with sectarians. They will say, "We do not have enough knowledge but go ask the paid priests and they will guide you".
My apologies if I have offended you.
FWIW I am a scientist myself and have a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering. Please understand that I make this disclosure not to impress you but only to let you know that NOT all scientists believe in the theory of evolution. The list of scientists that disputes the claims of evolution theory grows every day.
http//www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http//www.pssiinternational.com/
But all of the above does'nt mean squat if someone is unwilling to use his/her common sense to differentiate between the truth and BS.
peace. -
Peace "god1quran1",
I am not sure how to respond to this post other than to say that this is a similar response I get when I am debating Islam with sectarians. They will say, "We do not have enough knowledge but go ask the paid priests and they will guide you".
My apologies if I have offended you.
FWIW I am a scientist myself and have a Ph.D. in Biomedical Engineering. Please understand that I make this disclosure not to impress you but only to let you know that NOT all scientists believe in the theory of evolution. The list of scientists that disputes the claims of evolution theory grows every day.
http//www.dissentfromdarwin.org/
http//www.pssiinternational.com/
But all of the above does'nt mean squat if someone is unwilling to use his/her common sense to differentiate between the truth and BS.
peace.JK- As i said ive provided ample evidence but if you dont agree with it what can i do. I dont see how the majority of microbiologists are moving away from common decent which is becoming more and more obvious as more pseudogenes and/or vestigial(REDUCED functional) structures are found. They both support and complement each other. Why would an ostrich have wings if it was directly designed like creationism claims? Why does a mole still have eyelids? Why does the whale have vestigial olfactory traces in his nose which he doesnt require now anymore? Why does a snake have traces of hind legs which yes are now used for mating but they have an exact similar anatomic structure to previous reptiles with legs at those exact palces and those used the same part much more efficiently? If the snake were directly created we should see a more efficient mating organ. The human eye has the blood vessels infront. Some creationists have argued that this is to protect aginst UV light but again this is nonsense. Why not use an extra layer filter to protect against that and still have the blood vessels a the back which would be more efficient? Again these things can only be explained by evolution, NEVER creationism. If you look at your skin youll see even striking reptile scale similarities. Again a historical mark of evolution. What about the flying fish with a pair of fins like wings but yet these fish can still do no more than glide for a very short time? Again this makes no sense except if the creature is a transition to become something else in the far future. Why are both excretionary and sexual function packed into one organ? It would be more sensible according to direct creation if they both had seprate ones. This can definitely only be explaind through evolution since according to that this is what would happen, working with whats available, since both sexual fluid and urine are discharges. As mentioned earlier there are pseudogenes in the human DNA which are exactly the same in our previous ancestors but they cause more harm at present. They can easily develop into cancer cells so this is definitely unexplainable by direct creation. Ofcourse they might be reactivated for something much more useful int eh future but for now GOD is showing us historical contraint and common ancestry. Hes makking this clear all over the place and yet you deny it. All of this doesnt degrade GOD in the least because it is His law that there shall be(and logically has to if common decent be true which btw if were not would substantially wekaen the proof of there being One god only) HISTORICAL RESTRAINT and evolution must work with things already there. Hence these organs might just as well obtain a more sufficient function in the future while passing though certain phases. All plants and animals, including us humans, came from Eukaryotes in the beginning. The links can be traced through DNA sequencing. If you claim that thats not how it happened then how did it happen, please state your theory nd then the evidence. So far ive provided tons of evidence here but havent received an iota of evidence for creationism. GOD Bless!
-
And your understanding of khalaq is how?
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7I73DNguRIangel
and God1quran1, can you explain the following calculation to me (for example what is P and why is 0.99 being raised to the 10000 power)
P = 0.99^10000 = 2.2488^-44
peace
-
I said mutation is a random process. Why are you saying things I never said!
And whether it is "pure" or "impure" does not change the fact that it is a random. That means we are talking probabilities now where there is a possibility of failure
So for example prob of success is a generous 0.99 and in a billion years of "incremental and gradual change" evolution goes though 10000 ( a very small number) steps the probability of success isP = 0.99^10000 = 2.2488^-44
Is the absurdity of evolution theory becoming evident to you or have you made up your mind?
Note The prob of success initially would be very low initially considering that the theory of evolution makes the claim that we started from a single cell, an absurd claim in itself, for it is now clear that the complex molecules have to coexist simultaneously in order for life to exist at all!It would be absurd, only if evolution is a purely random process. I have told you that it is not. The odds for success is very small if you're aiming to get 10.000 successful steps, but if any successful step gets fixed in place (by nonrandom natural selection) the odds for success improves. You don't calculate the odds for all 10.000 steps at once, you calculate them in a Bayesian way, where you recalculate the odds after each step by considering successful steps that have been fixed by natural selection.
Also, what is your minimal requirement for life? A single functional cell? Simpler chemical systems which can replicate themselves and self-catalyze reactions are known. These systems could be precursors to life (according to your 'single cell' definition).
The question is what guides natural selection? Does it have a consciousness of its own? How does evolution know that a eye or a ear or a heart needs to be "evolved into". How do you even begin to go somewhere when you do not know where to go. These are extremely simple questions yet impossible for the evolutionists to answer. They will always avoid the "how".
If I were to answer scientifically, I'd say that natural selection does not have consciousness. Just like I'd say gravity and electricity doesn't have consciousness; they're all natural processes, after all.
My answer to the question 'how does evolution know it should make eyes or ears?' is that it really doesn't! Natural selection keeps variations that help its owners survival and disposes variations that makes its owners unable to survive/reproduce. A light/sound sense organ is adaptive to organisms trying to survive, so throughout evolution, organisms which have the best variation in their light/sound sensing systems leave more descendants, whereas those who do not (under usual circumstances) are outcompeted by the guys that have better sight/hearing. The eyes and ears you see are end products of that process, of which I'd say have no initial plan of a future eye or ear design. Also, you can still see simpler light/sound hearing systems among various life-forms, such as the lensless eye of the nautilus or the light-sensitive patch of an Euglena.
Do you also know about that the human eye and ear are examples of sub-optimal and history-constrained design? The human eye has light sensors that face backwards (away from incoming light) whereas the human ear includes three bones that were co-opted from the ancestral reptilian jaw.
Before speculating on the usefulness of a particular organ (which evolutionists have a habit of doing) tell me how an appendix is a vestigial organ when according to your own admission it serves "some immunological functions".
I know. When the list of "vestigial organs" has been reduced from more than 100 to zero over the last 150 years, the evolutionists found it easier to simply change the definition of vestigial organs so from
"An organ that is functionless and generally reduced in size but bears some resemblance to the corresponding fully functioning organs found in related organisms"
they revised it to something like
"Any part of an organism that has diminished in size during its evolution because the function it served decreased in importance or became totally unnecessary. Examples are the human appendix and the wings of the ostrich"
And the guinea pig is NOT our immediate ancestor (according to the theory of evolution). The evolutionists use lots of speculation and fables when explaining macroevolution of organs from the bone fossils remain of our "alleged ancestors.
If scientists change their definitions... so what? That's what science is about, constantly revising ideas. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the human appendix is expendable. And it doesn't change the fact that its functions are diminished compared to appendices of other mammals. Read here also http//www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vestiges/appendix.html
Khalaq means to create. The theory of evolution rejects creationism. Life is too complex to have been evolved by undergoing "natural processes" and this complexity exists at every level of design. From the sytems level to the molecular level. The timescales at which our physiological systems operate cannot be explained by the evolution nonsense of "incremental, gradual changes taking billions of years."
Khalaq is used to refer to the creation of the universe, the earth, the development of a human fetus... all of which involve natural processes. If you can't incorporate natural processes into the act of creation that's your own theological problem. I'm okay with the idea that God uses natural processes to create.
Are you talking about the forgeries, like the Nebraska man, or the piltdown man. The very old history of modern man nullifies the imaginary family tree of evolution theory. The fossils presented as transitional links are either that of humans or apes. The manner in which evolutionists depict drawings of neanderthals from bone fossil remains as half human-half ape is truly amazing! I never knew we could predict the amount of body hair from a few bones.
No, what I'm talking is lots of real fossils that have been unearthed since the 1970s and before... Lucy, Turkana Boy, lots of australopith fossils from Africa, Homo erectus fossils from many parts of the world...
Let's see how you define 'human' and 'ape'. Check this
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg
and tell me which fossils are 'human' and which are 'ape'. By the way, I have a background in taxonomy. Apes are a category (two primate families, Hylobatidae and Hominidae) which includes humans (let's say the human definition refers to the genus Homo, which at least would include Homo habilis, erectus, archaic sapiens, Neanderthals, and modern humans). Saying 'humans or apes' is taxonomically similar with 'birds or chickens' or 'plant or corn'Does it? If they show the "same things", why was there a need to exaggerate in the first place?
I think you are deceiving yourself by being an evolution apologist.See here for embryo photos
http//www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.htmlYes I know evolutionists have a propensity to avoid simple questions concerning extremely complex occurrences in nature.
Again avoiding simple question that are impossible to answer using the theory of evolution. Let me rephrase. At what point in the imaginary world of evolution did the animal made a conscious decision?Asking evolution to explain the soul is like asking physics to explain the meaning of words. It's not meant to answer that problem, so I can't answer your question using evolution (or science for that matter).
But for your rephrased question 'At what point did the animal made a conscious decision?' or, if I may refine it 'At what point in evolution does consciousness appear?' I would answer... at many points! I don't see consciousness as an 'all-or-nothing' phenomenon, I see it as having a gradation among animals. Primates have a better mental capacity than average mammals, and mammals have a better mental capacity than reptiles, which are better than fishes, and so on. Human consciousness is currently the most advanced point in a long gradation of mental capabilities that might began in bacteria whose 'consciousness' might be just the ability to detect light.
Will it tell me how did natural selection inform the first plant coming out of the soil that its leaves will be the primary site of photosynthesis?
The plant physiology course? No, but it might tell you that photosynthesis began in blue-green bacteria and gets perfected by its descendants, the plants. Leaves are a later adaptation to capture light more efficiently.
-
Peace "god1quran1",
Lemme also repond to one of your claims...At what point in the imaginary world of evolution did the animal made a conscious decision?
JK- Id say at the point the brain developed a complex enough structure enabling the neurons to communicate with each so efficiently that consciousness came into being. Now i also have a hypothesis, AND IT IS STILL JUST THT A HYPOTHESIS, that the human brain might have evolved to a structure which is capable of connecting to parallel universes through wormholes in space and thats where our consciousness comes from. So you see consciousness doesnt create any probs for evolution.
Now you keep saying random, random, random whilst i believe ive told you before that "random" is just a word filler used for processes which relatiuve to us make no sense at the moment or cannot be understood. I for one say that the mutations in the DNA aint random either. They do vary in various directions but their variation is such that marvelous creatures can be formed one out of the other starting from a simple cell. You see how did the universe start. From a single point, right? Was all very simple right? BUT the constants were fixed as such that with time those "simple" particles self assembled into all what we have to day. So this silly notion of creationists saying for living things to exist all the molecules need to be in place simultaneosuly is just silly. Its not a piece by piece design and if it were it wldnt be all tht marvellous either. GOD Bless!