Evolution Poll
-
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! -
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.
This is the definition of Natural selection
The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
While process of natural selection may be used to eliminate the unfit, it has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve. It is simply not part of the definition! There is no increase in genetic information due to natural selection.
Therefore if the theory of evolution has to go anywhere, the bulk of the load has to be carried by the process of mutation, which we both agree is a random process.
Moreover, there is another huge assumption here that evolutionists make. That we start with very large numbers which is simply not true.
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).
"Could be"??? If it were that easy some one would have been able to create "life" in a lab.
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.
Yes and I would add that natural selection is a process that can cause microevolution in a specie, nothing more.
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.
Even if true, natural selection cannot help the organism that survived to gain new features.
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.
You see the evolutionists make a huge assumption here. You have to first tell me how did a light/sound organ develop in the first place? How did the organism know of the benefit of such an organ? How did the first few cells know of the direction that was required to form such a useful organ?
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.
No wonder scientists and researchers are copying those designs and still cannot figure out how they work!
If scientists change their definitions... so what? That's what science is about, constantly revising ideas.
revise ideas, not definitions. Thats not science. Its deception.
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
Reduced function is no evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution must show me how did the appendix form in an "ancestor" in the first place?
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.
The only problem is the there is just too much complexity in Gods creations to be formed through chance.
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...
There is no point debating this as we will get now where with this.
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'I was pointing out the fact that fossils bones cannot predict the amount of body hair shown in fictitious and misleading drawings. Surely you can see that.
See here for embryo photos
http//www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.htmlWell not all evolutionists agree with you.
http//www.nmsr.org/text.htm#embryo
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.
We cannot speak of natural selection and chance in isolation. Evolution cannot account for cases in which a strong member of a specie made a conscious decision to perish in order to save the weak.
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.
Again there are gaps in this theory that natural selection is unable to explain.
-
While process of natural selection may be used to eliminate the unfit, it has never been observed to have the power to cause things to evolve. It is simply not part of the definition! There is no increase in genetic information due to natural selection.
Only in your forced interpretation. How do you define information? According to Claude Shannon, information is certainty. Mutation supplies variation (uncertainty, not information per se) and natural selection, by reducing that randomness into the survival-promoting direction (eliminating everything that reduces survival) so the results are a biased sample of individuals which have somewhat similar characteristics (certainty).
Therefore if the theory of evolution has to go anywhere, the bulk of the load has to be carried by the process of mutation, which we both agree is a random process.
Moreover, there is another huge assumption here that evolutionists make. That we start with very large numbers which is simply not true.
And why is that? Unsupported assumptions are worthless arguments.
"Could be"??? If it were that easy some one would have been able to create "life" in a lab.
Well, I know some researches that has been able to make replicating systems in the lab...
Yes and I would add that natural selection is a process that can cause microevolution in a specie, nothing more.
Even if true, natural selection cannot help the organism that survived to gain new features.Assertions without support again. Show me the limits of microevolution.
You see the evolutionists make a huge assumption here. You have to first tell me how did a light/sound organ develop in the first place? How did the organism know of the benefit of such an organ? How did the first few cells know of the direction that was required to form such a useful organ?
First light organ a light-sensitive part.
First sound organ a vibration-sensitive part.How did they know its benefits? They do not. But the ones that have no light organs might be less successful in seeking light for photosynthesis, for instance, or the ones that have no sound organs might find it harder to avoid being eaten by predators. The ones that survive in larger numbers are the ones with light/sound organs. That is natural selection.
revise ideas, not definitions. Thats not science. Its deception.
That's what you think, because you don't seem to understand science. Science adapts to new discoveries, so revision of ideas (definitions are ideas too) are allowed. If your science doesn't allow that, maybe it's not science as we know it?
Reduced function is no evidence of evolution. The theory of evolution must show me how did the appendix form in an "ancestor" in the first place?
The appendix is an extension of the gut. And why is reduced function not evidence of evolution? Is it because you have decided that nothing should be evidence of evolution?
The only problem is the there is just too much complexity in Gods creations to be formed through chance.
Chance and natural selection! Not just chance!
There is no point debating this as we will get now where with this.
I was pointing out the fact that fossils bones cannot predict the amount of body hair shown in fictitious and misleading drawings. Surely you can see that.You say that of the fossils found so far, all of them are either ape or man. Now I ask you again Which are ape and which are man?
http//talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpgWell not all evolutionists agree with you.
http//www.nmsr.org/text.htm#embryo
Why do you think they don't agree with me? I agree with PZ Myers there "The similarities between vertebrate embryos are real. We must distinguish between observations of those similarities and hypotheses about their causes. The similarities are not in doubt; there are worthwhile studies of the degree and timing of the similarities, but none that question their overall existence. " See the photos in millerandlevine (http//www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) and tell me how is that not similar.
We cannot speak of natural selection and chance in isolation.
See, now you start to understand isolation. Now stop insisting that evolution is 100% chance.
Evolution cannot account for cases in which a strong member of a specie made a conscious decision to perish in order to save the weak.
A strong member decides to perish to save the weak? Give me a case, I'll explain it using evolution.
Again there are gaps in this theory that natural selection is unable to explain.
If you don't want to take the plant physiology course, that's your own choice... if you're happy with being ignorant.