Evolution or Intelligent design ?

supportpeacenotwar

Sorry for my asking you this, but have you ever worked in a scientific field or branch?

Science is most critical of science. A scientist will get higher grants much quicker if s/he's able to prove another scientist and their theory wrong. Scientific findings are always and automatically falsifiable. Never static.

Religion is the opposite. It is unfalsifiable and unverifiable. It is not reproducible and not testable. It is based on faith and not facts. The fields are diametrically opposed. How would you suggest "bringing them together" - and why?

Salaam,

I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

Man_of_Faith

Salaam zulf, really good post there! Highly philosophical.

Zulf

There is a slight misconception here atheists have nothing to do with science or scientists. Atheism is only a lack of a belief regarding all gods. Atheists do not WANT a division, just an acknowledgement of facts. They also don't form a group or faction with a commonality.

Right. One should not equate 'atheist' with 'scientist' as they are two totally different things. A person can be both, or one, or neither of these. At the same time as we cannot generalize about atheists, it is likely that SOME do want a division, and SOME are not interested in aknowledgement of facts... but this goes for any "group", (even though it is often silly to talk about 'group&#039.

I don't quite understand why you see a conflict here. ID proponents make claims they can't prove. End of story. No conflict.

Right. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

Thank you, well formulated. The idea of ID does not entail a god as such. They just make some wild assertions based on the Bible and add doubt and wild claims using populist vocabulary, so the simple minded part of the American population just follows, without any understanding.

To be honest, I don't know squat about the proponents of ID, even though I have assumed they believe that the universe has been designed by a god. There are so many names, labels and denominations these days...

Kind regards

StopS

Salaam,

I haven't, no, but I was talking more about the "layman" perspective. Yes, science is constantly re-evaluating claims and new findings, including ones that may even contradict previous research, are also published as they emerge, from what I can tell.
I meant more that some outside the field can sometimes view science as though it is the only model or approach that can help us understand our world and human experience, at the expense of all other approaches. Hence, they completely reject religion and spirituality - which is fair enough if that's what works for them, but it does mean the discussion or debate pretty much ends there and then or goes round in circles.

In terms of bringing them together, I meant individuals outside the field who may be religious not completely rejecting things that are scientific simply because of the "divide" between science and religion. Similarly, in those debates, those who reject religion might be more open to the religious arguments and not simply dismiss them because they refer to things outside of the scientific field such as God, scripture, etc. My point as more focused on how a debate itself would not just go round in circles or reach an impasse. I guess I'm referring to people meeting each other half way.

Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

"When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

But whatever, let me clarify something

science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

supportpeacenotwar

Sorry, but I somehow fail to see the similarity is what you said earlier to what you are saying now.

"When people pit science against religion it just leads to those who reject religion and those who reject a lot of scientific approaches going round in circles. The only way to move forward in the debate is if one side or both sides are actually interested in bringing both science and religion together and possibly if each side can be as critical of science as they are of religions..."

But whatever, let me clarify something

science does not work with claims, but evidence, facts and probabilities.
science is a tool, just like a hammer is a tool, to analyse and describe the NATURAL world.
science does not address religion or gods or ghosts or anything supernatural, so no, it does not reject anything.
science does not go around in circles because as anything better is shown, scientists follow the evidence
if you have a better suggestion of how to describe nature, every scientist will adopt this

I understand that you would like to see harmony and mutual understanding, which is great. It just does not work everywhere. Let's face it, you have intuition, estimation, hunches, etc as alternatives to scientific accuracy. If you prefer an aeroplane built on estimates you are welcome to use it, I prefer precision and accuracy.

I think you fail to see the problem. If you are a fish you will have problems surviving on the moon. You can't discuss this or debate this away. Religion is based on faith, science is based on facts. They don't mix. You can't charge a battery using prayer and you can't provide spiritual hope with a battery charger. You can't "bring together" religion and science. Why would you want to? A religious pilot will not start thinking about his religion when he has an engine failure but his check-lists and procedures. He or she will leave her religion outside the cockpit. The pilot has check-lists, the Imam has scripture. You can't swap them around or mix them.

Salaam,

My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

StopS

Salaam,

My original point was about the way debates or discussions between two sides play out. i.e. they can just end up going round in circles. That was the point that I was responding to in terms of what JewishDude said. I'm referring more to what is constructive in terms of debate and approaches of the people in that debate. Nothing really poignant just a general comment.

In terms of the rest of your posts, 'claim' is just a popular term that is used. It's part of the outsider lingo whether accurate or not. You see it all the time in news articles and so on.

I also never said that science would go around in circles. So I don't know where you got that from. I said a debate between two opposing sides would go round in circles. Not because of the arguments of one side either but because of both sides. I have been in my fair share of discussion that goes nowhere outside of this area as well, so it's not just this topic either.

This is exactly what happened when you responded last time to a post of mine. Maybe I have not explained myself in a way that makes sense to you - I apologise - but I am referring to particular types of discussion not the area as a whole. In fact, I'm not interested in bringing science and religion together as a united whole. Both groups can do their own thing so to speak. My post was more an observation and general thought on the situation.

I apologise for my misunderstanding what you said. Thank you for the clarification.

StopS

Shalom Aleikhem,

For those of you who do not know much about Intelligent Design (ID), please click here to read about it first.

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence. Basically, when we come across something that we can not explain, what we do is study that phenomena/subject/whatever. That is science. What the proponents of ID does is that they declare that thing to be "so complex that only an agency of intelligence can cause that".

Here is a situation I made up to demonstrate how detrimental such ideas can be for us

You and I are ancient Greeks. We see lighting. I ask you what that is and you say that you don't know. Then I tell you that "omg !! powerful things coming from clouds..from heaven... it is so super complex... there must be an intelligent agency, Zeus.... Zeus must be the one that is throwing these at as". You play the scientist and tell me that "look buddy, we have no idea whats causing that to happen, let us study and see what that is before we jump to conclusions based on our lack of knowledge and ignorance".

That is exactly why I am against proponents of ID. They have nothing to add to our knowledge and retards our progress.

Peace
----------- Student of Allah

Very nice summary in your last sentence there.

Noon_waalqalami

Peace,

In biology the female body is default. Only if something happens will the male be formed out of the female default body.
"He created the first being" Was the "first being" male or female? Was the mate male or female?

According to Qur'an female was first then from her the spouse (i.e. her mate naturally was male).

41 O you the humankind fear/be mindful yeh lord yours the one created you from nafsin/soul (f/s) one (f/s) and created min'h/from her/it zawjah/spouse hers/its and dispersed from them two men much of and women and fear yeh the god the one you asking with it and the wombs (i.e. blood relations) indeed the god he is over you watchful

I find "intelligent design" to be this bizarre and dishonest idea that also insults our intelligence.

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

How DNA Copies Itself
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VefaI0LrgE

StopS

Peace,

According to Qur'an female was first then from her the spouse (i.e. her mate naturally was male).

41 O you the humankind fear/be mindful yeh lord yours the one created you from nafsin/soul (f/s) one (f/s) and created min'h/from her/it zawjah/spouse hers/its and dispersed from them two men much of and women and fear yeh the god the one you asking with it and the wombs (i.e. blood relations) indeed the god he is over you watchful

So we are all biological clones of each other?
Why does the gender of a word, the feminine singular indefinite noun, determine the gender of the object? There is no gender allocation that I can see.
Why is the "mate" automatically male, when here it is a "feminine singular possessive pronoun"? Shouldn't the noun be feminine as well?
How does the soul which is "created" by some unknown, unexplained mechanism and process, automatically mean that a physical person is attached to it? Is the soul preserved separately when the human body dies? If yes, why shouldn't a soul be created separately and the creation of Adam is never mentioned?
Why should there be female and male souls? Do souls reproduce via sexual soul-organ-genitalia to produce more souls?

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

I would not ask question regarding scientific topics on a religious forum. You must be an expert in evolutionary biology to be able to assess that the widely accepted Theory of Evolution is "bizarre and clueless", but I doubt that anyone here can discuss this with you at that level. Why don't you head over to a science forum and discuss your findings with them and dazzle them with your insight?

Noon_waalqalami

So we are all biological clones of each other?

It appears; same 4 bit chemical program structure with copy, delete, error correcting, etc..

Why does the gender of a word, the feminine singular indefinite noun, determine the gender of the object? There is no gender allocation that I can see.
Why is the "mate" automatically male, when here it is a "feminine singular possessive pronoun"? Shouldn't the noun be feminine as well?
How does the soul which is "created" by some unknown, unexplained mechanism and process, automatically mean that a physical person is attached to it? Is the soul preserved separately when the human body dies? If yes, why shouldn't a soul be created separately and the creation of Adam is never mentioned?
Why should there be female and male souls? Do souls reproduce via sexual soul-organ-genitalia to produce more souls?

In Arabic words ending with always female.

Which it clearly states female then spouse hers and dispersed?
41 from them two men much of and women

When it says?
spouse hers -- again always female; as in example ..,

581 hence heard the god speech the one (f/s) disputes with you in/concerning spouse hers and complains to the god and the god hears conversing you two indeed the god hearer seer

I would not ask question regarding scientific topics on a religious forum. You must be an expert in evolutionary biology to be able to assess that the widely accepted Theory of Evolution is "bizarre and clueless", but I doubt that anyone here can discuss this with you at that level. Why don't you head over to a science forum and discuss your findings with them and dazzle them with your insight?

This is a thread on a forum and did you not ask which came first according to Qur'an?
Perhaps give details how 92 natural elements combined into 4 bit chemical program?

i.e. rocks left rubbing for billions of years and one day awake asking many questions.

StopS

It appears; same 4 bit chemical program structure with copy, delete, error correcting, etc..

In Arabic words ending with always female.

So there is no answer to my questions. Just repeating something, does not explain it.

Noon_waalqalami

So there is no answer to my questions. Just repeating something, does not explain it.

I did answer and gave examples; initially female. If male would be as in?

2190 so responded we to him and gave we to him Yaya/John and cured we for him spouse his

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

I find evolution theory and their prepositions set forth thus far equally bizarre and clueless.
If they mean things change over time, yes obvious -- where did adaptive code spring from?

How DNA Copies Itself
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VefaI0LrgE

Of course you have the right to find any idea bizarre and clueless. However, I do not understand why you believe evolution is so obviously flawed but at the same time you are not publishing your Nobel prize winning paper on the subject. I am not sure what you are talking about when you say "adaptive code spring". Nevertheless, I can not help but point out that you are making it sound like an argument from ignorance. Just as I have pointed out before, with the example of Zeus and lighting, you are doing the same. "I can't possibly explain or have the knowledge to explain where something came form, therefore I will conclude that it must be Zeus/X/God/whatever." No, even if nobody in the universe can possibly explain how a phenomenon takes places, you do not get to therefore conclude that whatever you say is right. When the fan of Zeus sees that none can explain lighting, it is then up to him to demonstrate that it is Zeus who is throwing the lighting, the burden of proof is not on others.

Perhaps give details how 92 natural elements combined into 4 bit chemical program?

i.e. rocks left rubbing for billions of years and one day awake asking many questions.

That is a gross misrepresentation of Evolution. Evolution explains the diversity of life, not its origin. The origin of life is a study that is not so much established like Evolution. It is known as Abiogenesis. Funny how what you say there reminds me of my earlier post on the subject

I regret to inform you that from my experience, what I have seen is that overwhelming majority of those who reject Evolution has no clue about it. They do not even know the basic fundamentals. Their idea is something like " A tornado going through a junkyard resulting in a fully functional F22 Raptor". If that was true representation of Evolution, would you accept it ?

And you are trying your best to misrepresent evolution in a similar fashion. Anyways, I will be eagerly waiting with the scientific community for your Nobel Prize winning paper on the subject that will overturn most of what we have learnt in the field of Biology in the last 100 years.

Peace
--------------- Student of Allah

GODsubmitter

Another interesting video where there is a lot of explanation about THE USE of mathematics in science, life and general reasoning. (Not numerology, mind you! - for people who do not know the difference between numerology and mathematics please go and learn)

Evolution or Creation The Final Argument by Dr. Rashad Khalifa
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILaHTACjV1k

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not. If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50.
The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.
Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

But, I suppose a lot of people do not study Dr. R. Khalifa's work, nor watch those informative videos...

Peace

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Another interesting video where there is a lot of explanation about THE USE of mathematics in science, life and general reasoning. (Not numerology, mind you! - for people who do not know the difference between numerology and mathematics please go and learn)

Evolution or Creation The Final Argument by Dr. Rashad Khalifa
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILaHTACjV1k

I have seen this video in the past. It is not about numerology. In this video Dr. Rashad Khalifa attempts at debunking evolution using statistical improbability. He fails miserably because he had no idea what he was talking about. Probably he should have read the Qur'an where it told him

1736 And do not uphold what you have no knowledge of. For the hearing, eyesight, and heart, all these you are responsible for.

If he did read that, its sad how it didn't stop him from spewing ignorant garbage about the theory of evolution.

In this computer age, we have mathematical laws that tell us whether a certain event is probable or not.

Mathematicians and people in general estimated and worked out probabilities of events before the computer age too. I didn't get why he had to start the sentence that way. His sentence makes it seem like computers gave us certain mathematical laws which taught us to calculate probabilities of events. "Computer Age" has nothing to do with it. Other than trying to add some kind of credibility to what he was saying, I don't see why he should have started with that.

If we throw five numbered cubes up in the air and let them fall into a guided straight line, the probability laws tell us the number of possible combinations we can get 1x2x3x4x5=120 combinations. Thus, the probability of obtaining any combination is 1 in 120, or 1/120, or 0.0086. This probability diminishes fast when we increase the number of cubes. Mathematicians, who are very exacting scientists, have agreed that the probability diminishes to "Zero" when we increase the number of cubes to 84. If we work with 84 cubes, the probability diminishes to 209x10 (raised to the power of) -50.

He is talking about improbability of "desired" events. Anyone who knows anything about calculating probabilities would know that it isn't wise to calculate the probability of an event after it has already happened to add credibility to the significance of the event. For example, let us follow his example of cubes. Take 1000 cubes and throw them in the air. After they land, see the combinations and note them down. For example, one of them is 1 another is 6 another one is 3 so on and on. Now calculate the probability of this happening. You will find that the probability of all the 1000 cubes landing to give you those values is so low that you may consider it to be ZERO. Let's say, a figure like

0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000
0000000000000000000076

We will see that the probability of that event can be assumed to be ZERO. But, will you then conclude that that event didn't happen? Are you that naive? Of course it happened. It is just that you are calculating the odds of something happening after it has already happened. Therefore, even knowing basics of this is enough to stop someone from spewing garbage like Dr. Rashad Khalifa did there.

The probability laws tell us that the probability of the haphazard creation of the exacting sequences of nucleotides into DNA is Zero, many times over. We are not talking about 84 nucleotides; we are talking about billions of nucleotides that must be arranged in a specific sequence.

This is where Dr. Rashad Khalifa demonstrates that he has no idea even about the biological processes he is talking about. The formation or evolution of DNA has nothing to do with a haphazard random collision of random modules. Click here to read about some common models of DNA Evolution. I don't see anyone talking about a tornado of random particles or molecules causing the evolution of DNA. This guy just demonstrated his ignorance of the topic he is discussing.

Some evolutionists have stated that the human gene and the monkey's gene are 90% similar. However, even if the similarity was 99%, we are still talking about 300,000,000 nucleotides that must be haphazardly re-arranged to change the monkey into a human. The human gene contains 30,000,000,000 nucleotides; 1% of that is 300,000,000.

The genetic match between human and other apes is not a belief or mere statement by "some evolutionists". It is demonstrably and evidently true. We are talking about GENETICS here, not faith. It is not an assumption. We have DNA evidence of this. If you don't accept genetic evidence, what more could scientists offer you as proof? A claim that it was a divine message some angel whispered to them? The rest of what Rashad says there is garbage based on what I said earlier about the misuse of "probability". He is assuming that evolution "desired" that random collisions of random thing result into a human being or a chimp. That idea has no place in the world of biological evolution and only exists in his mind and the minds of those who are clueless on the matter of evolution. He doesn't even seem to understand that no modern monkey changed into human. Common ancestry is not about that. Common ancestry is having an ancestor in common, not being the ancestor yourself.

But, I suppose a lot of people do not study Dr. R. Khalifa's work, nor watch those informative videos...

Among all his videos, I think this one is the worst when it comes to spewing garbage. In other videos he talks about things I can not possibly falsify. But in this one, he made the mistake of addressing a topic that we know things about and can actually tell when he is bullsh*tting.

I just don't understand one thing. When it comes to studying Islam, would you study it using materials from anti-Islamic sources? Does that make any sense? What we do is we study the scriptures. When we run into trouble, we consult experts in the field and listen to what they have to say. We use our reasoning to make sense of whatever they say and then accept or reject something. Why then when it comes to evolution, all of a sudden people become so dishonest. You think all the top scientific institutions and the academic arena has conspired against you? Virtually all scientific establishments in the last 150 years in the field of biology recruited dishonest people who are faking studies and winning Nobel prizes just to lie to you about evolution?

Honesty demands that you either shut up when you don't know anything about the topic or assess it fairly. Googling out anti-evolutionist materials from creationist sources is not honest by any definition. There is a reason why the scientific establishments have no problem with evolution. All the evidence we have gathered thus far points to evolution.

By the way, if you can disprove evolution, you will get a Nobel prize. Why do you think these creationists never get a Nobel prize for debunking evolution? Because making sh*t up about evolution and misusing probability to make evolution seem less likely doesn't count as a refutation of an established scientific theory.

Peace

Peace be unto you too.

------------------------ Student of Allah

good_logic

Peace Student of Allah.

I read your post and I am a little confused.

Did RK say he did not believe in evolution? I thought he was talking about evolution between species. Ie one of the species evolving over time and becoming another?
Evolution of each species developing and becoming different as time passed is a different thing.There is scientific evidence for this.
However
What solid evidence exists that proves beyond doubt that some species became other species?

For example a dog becoming a sheep?..etc..

Science through DNA study are claiming now that ths is an impossibility.according to the DNA make up of each species.

Peace to you.

GODsubmitter

But as I said, people don't study seriously Dr. Khalifa's work, nor watch the video with open mind...
Many are busy just strengthening their own opinions, or prejudices perhaps...
No offense intended...

Peace

Man_of_Faith

Salaam GODsubmitter,

Many people do not believe him because he came up with a lot of conjecture as well as some partial truth.

God bless you

Student_of_Allah

Shalom Aleikhem,

Peace Student of Allah.

I read your post and I am a little confused.

Yeah, that happens.

Did RK say he did not believe in evolution? I thought he was talking about evolution between species. Ie one of the species evolving over time and becoming another?

I honestly don't remember everything he said in that video as I watched it a long time ago. However, he was making the case against evolution based on demonstrably wrong ideas about the processes involved and statistical improbability. Whether he was arguing for micro or macro evolution is irrelevant when his argument was based on his absolute ignorance of the processes involved in evolution and inability to grasp basic fundamentals of statistical analysis. In short, if you want to look incredibility ignorant and stupid, you can copy paste what he said as your argument against the theory of evolution.

Evolution of each species developing and becoming different as time passed is a different thing.There is scientific evidence for this.

There is no difference between micro and macro evolution when it comes to the processes involved. The only factor that changes is "time". Let me copy paste from one of my old posts so that you may understand this issue better

Micro and Macro evolution are different based on the time-scale and time-frame. An analogy for micro would be the amount of net profit Bill Gates made from the copy of Windows that I purchased. Ofcourse, the "macro" would be the overall net profit Bill Gates made from his Microsoft Corporation.

It is absurd to state that one believes in micro-economy but refuses to admit macro-economy. Because the "macro" is like a sum of the "micro"s. Let us put it this way, what you are saying is that you believe that if I deposit a dollar a day in your family bank account, it gives your family 365 dollars extra in a year, and for a 50 year time frame it gives you $18250 extra. Your family will still probably remain in similar social group. At the same time, you are refusing that given enough time, for example, 10000 years it would make your family a Millionaire ($3.65m) or a Billionaire in in 3 million years and shift your family to entirely different social group/s!!

The human example speaks for itself. Originating out of Africa, now we have so many different races. Do you know about "Ring Species" (click) ?

http//files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/29a79d501d3c.gif

This will help you enormously to understand this subject. As the species keeps on changing little at a time, giving rise to different types of the same species (in different environment), there comes a point when the two animals at the two ends of the ring can not interbreed !! That is the magnitude of difference that we already see in nature. Given more time.... I don't think I need to finish the sentence.

However
What solid evidence exists that proves beyond doubt that some species became other species?

For example a dog becoming a sheep?..etc..

We have confirmed common ancestry. Genetics and DNA studies confirmed the evolution theory for us. They alone should suffice for anyone looking for evidence of evolution. However, we also have fossil evidence too. On top of all that, we have observed instances of speciation. The following list of papers/works compiled by talk-origins should help you study and validate this

Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 3663-64.
Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 33613-14.
Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 71-3.
Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 641102.
Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346558-560.
Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15166-171.
Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 681747-1760.
Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 3115-21.
Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35138.
Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.
Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 493436.
Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28737-745.
Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 5641-174.
Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.
Craig, T. P., J. K. Itami, W. G. Abrahamson and J. D. Horner. 1993. Behavioral evidence for host-race fromation in Eurosta solidaginis. Evolution. 471696-1710.
Cronquist, A. 1978. Once again, what is a species? Biosystematics in agriculture. Beltsville Symposia in Agricultural Research 23-20.
Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.
Crossley, S. A. 1974. Changes in mating behavior produced by selection for ethological isolation between ebony and vestigial mutants of Drosophilia melanogaster. Evolution. 28631-647.
de Oliveira, A. K. and A. R. Cordeiro. 1980. Adaptation of Drosophila willistoni experimental populations to extreme pH medium. II. Development of incipient reproductive isolation. Heredity. 44123-130.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1988. Phylogenetic systematics and the species problem. Cladistics. 4317-338.
de Queiroz, K. and M. Donoghue. 1990. Phylogenetic systematics and species revisited. Cladistics. 683-90.
de Vries, H. 1905. Species and varieties, their origin by mutation.
de Wet, J. M. J. 1971. Polyploidy and evolution in plants. Taxon. 2029-35.
del Solar, E. 1966. Sexual isolation caused by selection for positive and negative phototaxis and geotaxis in Drosophila pseudoobscura. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US). 56484-487.
Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26357-388.
Dobzhansky, T. 1937. Genetics and the origin of species. Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.
Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230289-292.
Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila new excitement in an old field. Science. 177664-669.
Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 431308-1311.
Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 391388-1392.
Donoghue, M. J. 1985. A critique of the biological species concept and recommendations for a phylogenetic alternative. Bryologist 88172-181.
Du Rietz, G. E. 1930. The fundamental units of biological taxonomy. Svensk. Bot. Tidskr. 24333-428.
Ehrman, E. 1971. Natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 105479-483.
Ehrman, E. 1973. More on natural selection for the origin of reproductive isolation. The American Naturalist. 107318-319.
Feder, J. L., C. A. Chilcote and G. L. Bush. 1988. Genetic differentiation between sympatric host races of the apple maggot fly, Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 33661-64.
Feder, J. L. and G. L. Bush. 1989. A field test of differential host-plant usage between two sibling species of Rhagoletis pomonella fruit flies (DipteraTephritidae) and its consequences for sympatric models of speciation. Evolution 431813-1819.
Frandsen, K. J. 1943. The experimental formation of Brassica juncea Czern. et Coss. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 4, 111-17.
Frandsen, K. J. 1947. The experimental formation of Brassica napus L. var. oleifera DC and Brassica carinata Braun. Dansk. Bot. Arkiv., No. 7, 121-16.
Galiana, A., A. Moya and F. J. Alaya. 1993. Founder-flush speciation in Drosophila pseudoobscura a large scale experiment. Evolution. 47432-444.
Gottleib, L. D. 1973. Genetic differentiation, sympatric speciation, and the origin of a diploid species of Stephanomeira. American Journal of Botany. 60 545-553.
Halliburton, R. and G. A. E. Gall. 1981. Disruptive selection and assortative mating in Tribolium castaneum. Evolution. 35829-843.
Hurd, L. E., and R. M. Eisenberg. 1975. Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. The American Naturalist. 109353-358.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1927. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Bull. Appl. Botany. 17305-408.
Karpchenko, G. D. 1928. Polyploid hybrids of Raphanus sativus L. X Brassica oleraceae L. Z. Indukt. Abstami-a Verenbungsi. 481-85.
Kilias, G., S. N. Alahiotis and M. Delecanos. 1980. A multifactorial investigation of speciation theory using Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution. 34730-737.
Knight, G. R., A. Robertson and C. H. Waddington. 1956. Selection for sexual isolation within a species. Evolution. 1014-22.
Koopman, K. F. 1950. Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution. 4135-148.
Lee, R. E. 1989. Phycology (2nd edition) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Levin, D. A. 1979. The nature of plant species. Science 204381-384.
Lokki, J. and A. Saura. 1980. Polyploidy in insect evolution. In W. H. Lewis (ed.) Polyploidy Biological Relevance. Plenum Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. 1981. Tolerance of higher plants to toxic materials. In J. A. Bishop and L. M. Cook (eds.). Genetic consequences of man made change. Pp.177-297. Academic Press, New York.
Macnair, M. R. and P. Christie. 1983. Reproductive isolation as a pleiotropic effect of copper tolerance in Mimulus guttatus. Heredity. 50295-302.
Manhart, J. R. and R. M. McCourt. 1992. Molecular data and species concepts in the algae. Journal of Phycology. 28730-737.
Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the origin of species from the viewpoint of a zoologist. Columbia University Press, New York.
Mayr, E. 1982. The growth of biological thought diversity, evolution and inheritance. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. McCourt, R. M. and R. W. Hoshaw. 1990. Noncorrespondence of breeding groups, morphology and monophyletic groups in Spirogyra (Zygnemataceae; Chlorophyta) and the application of species concepts. Systematic Botany. 1569-78.
McPheron, B. A., D. C. Smith and S. H. Berlocher. 1988. Genetic differentiation between host races of Rhagoletis pomonella. Nature. 33664-66.
Meffert, L. M. and E. H. Bryant. 1991. Mating propensity and courtship behavior in serially bottlenecked lines of the housefly. Evolution 45293-306.
Mishler, B. D. 1985. The morphological, developmental and phylogenetic basis of species concepts in the bryophytes. Bryologist. 88207-214.
Mishler, B. D. and M. J. Donoghue. 1982. Species concepts a case for pluralism. Systematic Zoology. 31491-503.
Muntzing, A. 1932. Cytogenetic investigations on the synthetic Galeopsis tetrahit. Hereditas. 16105-154.
Nelson, G. 1989. Cladistics and evolutionary models. Cladistics. 5275-289.
Newton, W. C. F. and C. Pellew. 1929. Primula kewensis and its derivatives. J. Genetics. 20405-467.
Otte, E. and J. A. Endler (eds.). 1989. Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates. Sunderland, MA.
Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37487-499.
Pasterniani, E. 1969. Selection for reproductive isolation between two populations of maize, Zea mays L. Evolution. 23534-547.
Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory an experimental approach. Evolution. 32465-474.
Prokopy, R. J., S. R. Diehl, and S. H. Cooley. 1988. Oecologia. 76138.
Rabe, E. W. and C. H. Haufler. 1992. Incipient polyploid speciation in the maidenhair fern (Adiantum pedatum, adiantaceae)? American Journal of Botany. 79701-707.
Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39645-646.
Rice, W. R. and E. E. Hostert. 1993. Laboratory experiments on speciation What have we learned in forty years? Evolution. 471637-1653.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1988. Speciation via disruptive selection on habitat preference experimental evidence. The American Naturalist. 131911-917.
Rice, W. R. and G. W. Salt. 1990. The evolution of reproductive isolation as a correlated character under sympatric conditions experimental evidence. Evolution. 441140-1152.
Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126642-661.
Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146292-301.
Shikano, S., L. S. Luckinbill and Y. Kurihara. 1990. Changes of traits in a bacterial population associated with protozoal predation. Microbial Ecology. 2075-84.
Smith, D. C. 1988. Heritable divergence of Rhagoletis pomonella host races by seasonal asynchrony. Nature. 33666-67.
Soans, A. B., D. Pimentel and J. S. Soans. 1974. Evolution of reproductive isolation in allopatric and sympatric populations. The American Naturalist. 108117-124.
Sokal, R. R. and T. J. Crovello. 1970. The biological species concept a critical evaluation. The American Naturalist. 104127-153.
Soltis, D. E. and P. S. Soltis. 1989. Allopolyploid speciation in Tragopogon Insights from chloroplast DNA. American Journal of Botany. 761119-1124.
Stuessy, T. F. 1990. Plant taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1962. Isolation by disruptive selection. Nature. 1931164-1166.
Thoday, J. M. and J. B. Gibson. 1970. The probability of isolation by disruptive selection. The American Naturalist. 104219-230.
Thompson, J. N. 1987. Symbiont-induced speciation. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society. 32385-393.
Vrijenhoek, R. C. 1994. Unisexual fish Model systems for studying ecology and evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 2571-96.
Waring, G. L., W. G. Abrahamson and D. J. Howard. 1990. Genetic differentiation in the gall former Eurosta solidaginis (DipteraTephritidae) along host plant lines. Evolution. 441648-1655.
Weinberg, J. R., V. R. Starczak and P. Jora. 1992. Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory. Evolution. 461214-1220.
Wood, A. M. and T. Leatham. 1992. The species concept in phytoplankton ecology. Journal of Phycology. 28723-729.
Yen, J. H. and A. R. Barr. 1971. New hypotheses of the cause of cytoplasmic incompatability in Culex pipiens L.

The trouble is that in the last 150+ years we have worked out so many things and they all point to the one conclusion of common ancestry. You can google out all the books published by reputed sources in the last 150 years and realize that common ancestry ( along with macro-evolution) is no mystery in the academic and scientific arena. I could have provided a list of all these materials but that seems like overdoing things.

Oh, and one animal just can't transform into another just like that. Its a tree of life, not a haphazard mess. The evolution of dogs from wild wolves is no secret

Druzhkova AS, Thalmann O, Trifonov VA, Leonard JA, Vorobieva NV, et al. (2013) Ancient DNA Analysis Affirms the Canid from Altai as a Primitive Dog" PLoS ONE 8(3) e57754. doi
Vila C, Savolainen P, Maldonado JE, Amorim IR, Rice JE, et al. (1997) Multiple and ancient origins of the domestic dog" Science 276 1687?1689. doi 10.1126/science.276.5319.1687.
Germonpr? M, Sablin MV, Stevens RE, Hedges REM, Hofreiter M, et al. (2009) Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes. Journal of Archaeological Science 36 473?490. doi 10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.033.
Crockford SJ, Kuzmin YV (2012) Comments on Germonpre et al., Journal of Archaeological Science 36, 2009 "Fossil dogs and wolves from Palaeolithic sites in Belgium, the Ukraine and Russia osteometry, ancient DNA and stable isotopes" . and Germonpre, Lazkickova-Galetova, and Sablin, Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 2012 "Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmosti site, the Czech Republic" Journal of Archaeological Science 39 2797?2801. doi 10.1016/j.jas.2012.04.033.
Larson G, Karlsson EK, Perri A, Webster MT, Ho SY, et al. (2012) Rethinking dog domestication by integrating genetics, archeology, and biogeography" Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109 8878?8883. doi 10.1073/pnas.1203005109. Find this article online
Germonpr? M, Sablin MV, Despres V, Hofreiter M, Laznickova-Galetova M, et al. (2013) Palaeolithic dogs and the early domestication of the wolf a reply to the comments of Crockford and Kuzmin (2012). Journal of Archaeological Science 40 786?792. doi 10.1016/j.jas.2012.06.016.
Ovodov ND, Crockford SJ, Kuzmin YV, Higham TF, Hodgins GW, et al. (2011) A 33,000-year-old incipient dog from the Altai Mountains of Siberia evidence of the earliest domestication disrupted by the Last Glacial Maximum. Plos One 6 e22821. doi 10.1371/journal.pone.0022821.
Germonpr? M, Laznickova-Galetova M, Sablin MV (2012) Palaeolithic dog skulls at the Gravettian Predmosti site, the Czech Republic. Journal of Archaeological Science 39 184?202. doi 10.1016/j.jas.2011.09.022.

Its just that you can't expect any random combination of lineage. That will end up disproving the theory of evolution. When you are expecting one random animal to turn into another random animal, it just goes on to show that you do not have any proper grasp of the theory of evolution. Just by asking such a question, you proved that you are not even familiar with the fundamental concepts and processes involved. I don't know whether to blame you for that or not simply because of christian/muslim creationist sources spreading propaganda material against evolution. I can already sense that you don't have a proper understanding of the subject. It is because of that I advice that you learn about evolution from experts in the field of evolution and try to steer clear of the creationist propaganda materials.

Science through DNA study are claiming now that ths is an impossibility.according to the DNA make up of each species.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Proving speciation impossible will dismantle the theory of evolution and win the one proving it a Nobel Prize that will not go unnoticed. The scientific arena and the academics are completely unaware of what you are claiming here. May be the message didn't reach them. I don't know. The claim seems identical to another creationist lie. Its just so strange. If true, this will turn the whole body of knowledge we gathered on biology upside down. The scientific and academic arena would not have ignored it.

Peace to you.

Peace
----------------------- Student of Allah