Theory of Evolution anyone ?
-
If you are saying one species has become another, then bring us proof, or show us an intermediate species?
Salam,
Evidence is all around us! On earth and in the visible universe. There are many scientists dedicating their time and energy to studying evolution!
Should we really think that God has placed more than 8.7 million species separately on Earth? Please see Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million http//www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html
Should we believe that God has placed so many stars individually in the sky or should we believe that they have evolved from previous generation of stars and gas/dust clouds?
We have evidence that the Universe came into existence from a small point we cannot yet fully understand. Then it automatically evolved according to the Natural Laws.
Do you want to believe in the LORD of the Bible or Allah of the Qur'an?
Allah of the Qur'an is so Sublime and Intelligent that works through subtle ways and only SCIENTIST can truly understand those ways.
3528 And of human beings, the crawling creatures and related animals, and the cattle have diverse colors and properties. This is why of all His servants only those with knowledge of sciences can get some idea of the glory of God (by examining the wonders in nature). Surely, God is Almighty, Absolver of imperfections.
Creation of species on earth is no more different than the creation of the Universe. It all happens in stages driven from previous stages.
7927 What! Are you the more difficult to create or is the heaven that He built?
Homo Sapiens have evolved, along with some other groups that are extinct now, from previous less developed species.
Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees have 99% of their genes the same.
Humans and Chimpanzees have had a common ancestor long time ago.
All species evolved on earth from some simple, less intelligent and less developed form of life.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Evolution is a GOD guided process.
My understanding and yours may not be as far as you think.The water that condensed at the early stages of the development of the earth and formed the seas oceans mixed with the dirt to form mud. Out of the molding mud was born the simplest living organisms in the shape of bacteria and single cell organisms. From this common origin of both plants and animals was developed two types of microscopic organisms. The first type gave birth to all plants while the second type developed into animals. The first of these primitive organisms is thought to have come to exist around 2.7 billion years ago. All these organisms originated from water then gradually developed into more complex living creatures that moved to land. This fact is also started in the Quran
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
It is indeed interesting, and along the same lines, to note that it was found that all liquid in our bodies ( blood, saliva, tears, sweat?.etc ) contain the same percentage of salt as is found in the oceans.
From the early organisms that moved to land developed the first reptiles around 200 million years ago. The first birds flew around 130 million years ago and the first man, Homo Habilis, walked on earth one million years ago. The first Homo Sapiens, who are thought of as our direct ancestors, walked on earth a mere 15, 000 years ago.
Today, when human tissue is analysed, it is found to contain exactly the same eighteen most abundant elements in the earth's crust. These are
Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminium, Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Hydrogen, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Phosphorous, Lead, Copper, Silver, Carbon and Zinc.
The Quran very accurately instates that fact with the following words
We created the human being from a certain kind of mud.
The fact that we are created from clay is indeed mentioned in the Scripture preceding the Quran, however, it is the word 'sulalah' which literally means (an active representative sample) that includes the biological fact that coincides with modern knowledge.However it was all programmed to come as different species by the Intelligent designer.Through DNA codes. Just the same as you come from one single cell,then develop into a grown human with different organs of different functions.
Praise be to GOD the creator of everything.
GOD bless.
Peace to you.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Evolution is a GOD guided process.
My understanding and yours may not be as far as you think.The water that condensed at the early stages of the development of the earth and formed the seas oceans mixed with the dirt to form mud. Out of the molding mud was born the simplest living organisms in the shape of bacteria and single cell organisms. From this common origin of both plants and animals was developed two types of microscopic organisms. The first type gave birth to all plants while the second type developed into animals. The first of these primitive organisms is thought to have come to exist around 2.7 billion years ago. All these organisms originated from water then gradually developed into more complex living creatures that moved to land. This fact is also started in the Quran
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
It is indeed interesting, and along the same lines, to note that it was found that all liquid in our bodies ( blood, saliva, tears, sweat?.etc ) contain the same percentage of salt as is found in the oceans.
From the early organisms that moved to land developed the first reptiles around 200 million years ago. The first birds flew around 130 million years ago and the first man, Homo Habilis, walked on earth one million years ago. The first Homo Sapiens, who are thought of as our direct ancestors, walked on earth a mere 15, 000 years ago.
Today, when human tissue is analysed, it is found to contain exactly the same eighteen most abundant elements in the earth's crust. These are
Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminium, Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Hydrogen, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Phosphorous, Lead, Copper, Silver, Carbon and Zinc.
The Quran very accurately instates that fact with the following words
We created the human being from a certain kind of mud.
The fact that we are created from clay is indeed mentioned in the Scripture preceding the Quran, however, it is the word 'sulalah' which literally means (an active representative sample) that includes the biological fact that coincides with modern knowledge.However it was all programmed to come as different species by the Intelligent designer.Through DNA codes. Just the same as you come from one single cell,then develop into a grown human with different organs of different functions.
Praise be to GOD the creator of everything.
GOD bless.
Peace to you.
I wrongly thought that you think God has placed each species directly from the heavens upon the earth. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Of course I believe in evolution within each species. Gradual change to adapt as life progresses.
That is different from one species becoming another.
If you are saying one species has become another, then bring us proof, or show us an intermediate species?
Peace Jafar
Definition of a human You are a human.
If you are an "ape" and I am conversing with you, then I am wrong!
Definition of " its own" One species does not change to another! Example,a dog does not become a sheep?
Peace to you both.
On species WHAT IS A SPECIES?
Everything gradually change overtime, yes it's everything, including the planet the star, the galaxies, the carbon and non-carbon based being that live in the planet etc..
For the carbon and celluloid based being that live in the planet, they invented a category called "Species".
One "Species" does and can evolve into multitude of "Species".
The exact definition of "WHAT IS A SPECIES" is a hot debate at the moment.The example of "Dog become a sheep" is irrelevant, it is like saying "Muhammad Ali become Michael Jackson".
BUT.. A species within dinosaur family does evolve to become birds of today.The question should be "Who is the common ancestor of Dog and Sheep?"
This is as relevant as "Who is the common ancestor of Muhammad Ali and Michael Jackson?"ON DEFINITION OF HUMAN.
Be more clear and concise on the matter, if it's merely ability to communicate, then see this, Gorilla can communicate with Human through sign language.http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorgFtCqPEs
Does that makes human and gorilla as "ONE SPECIES"?
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar.
Thank you for your comments.
Please read post 104. You may or may not agree.
In short Evolution is a GOD guided process.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
In short Evolution is a GOD guided process.
GOD bless you.OF COURSE IT IS, AS ALL ASPECT OF LIFE! (not only evolution)
Your hair will not fall if it's not in accordance to the Will of "Master of All Universes".
In scientific lingo God is known by the word Nature.
Law Of Nature, Nature Dictate Evolution etc... which is actually one of the same thing..The root cause of all of this 'rejection' of "Evolution" from specific group of people is not on the "Evolution" itself.
But more due to the Assyrian/Babylonian originated Myth of ADAM and EVE in EDEN, as told in the book of Genesis which they 100% believe as all fact!
And the myth do not fit to the way evolution works.. -
Peace, Jafar.
In scientific lingo God is known by the word Nature.
Law Of Nature, Nature Dictate Evolution etc... which is actually one of the same thing..I just got a chance to check out this thread, and I have a view similar to the idea that you convey in your post ALLAH (God) is synonymous with Nature, the Universe, energy, etc. Many people tend to disagree with this notion, however, because they perceive God as being personal. The Qur'aan appears to support the idea of ALLAH being a personal god as well, due to him communicating with people; sending prophets and messengers; sitting on a throne (whether this is a literal or symbolic 'throne' carrying out forms of justice; authoring books; being described as "merciful", "knowing", "wise", etc.
Do you believe that the Biblical and Qur'aanic depictions of God are correct? Do you believe that God is personal, in the sense that the Universe is interactive in our affairs (e.g. such as the notion proposed with the "law of attraction" concept)?
The root cause of all of this 'rejection' of "Evolution" from specific group of people is not on the "Evolution" itself.
But more due to the Assyrian/Babylonian originated Myth of ADAM and EVE in EDEN, as told in the book of Genesis which they 100% believe as all fact!
And the myth do not fit to the way evolution works..I agree with you on this point, at least for the most part... I think there are some people who reject the concept of evolution, via natural selection, because they don't want to be linked and compared to "mere animals". Humans are naturally egotistical, and they tend to hold themselves 'above' every other species and aspect of existence. Therefore, when scientists propose the idea that we are all apes, some people become offended.
Also, some people look at the complexity of life, and they determine that humans (and even some animals) are far too complex to have stemmed from a single-celled organism. These people often don't understand how evolution works, and they tend to make references to the implausibility of "an ape giving birth to a human" - which actually isn't how the evolutionary process works at all.
Again, many of them reject it because they don't understand it. I do believe that many (if not most) of the people who reject the notion of evolution do so due to the Biblical "Adam and Eve" story. However, this isn't the reason all of them reject it, and I think the root problem ultimately stems from the egotistical nature of humans, who refuse to be "lowered" to the level of animals, rather than the mythological Biblical story.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, Jafar.
I just got a chance to check out this thread, and I have a view similar to the idea that you convey in your post ALLAH (God) is synonymous with Nature, the Universe, energy, etc. Many people tend to disagree with this notion, however, because they perceive God as being personal. The Qur'aan appears to support the idea of ALLAH being a personal god as well, due to him communicating with people; sending prophets and messengers; sitting on a throne (whether this is a literal or symbolic 'throne' carrying out forms of justice; authoring books; being described as "merciful", "knowing", "wise", etc.
Do you believe that the Biblical and Qur'aanic depictions of God are correct? Do you believe that God is personal, in the sense that the Universe is interactive in our affairs (e.g. such as the notion proposed with the "law of attraction" concept)?
First, we need to trace the background on how this mindset of "personality" and it's opposite "non-personality" came into existence within human mindset.
Human is an arrogant species, they think high of themselves and they always think that they are above 'others'.
They only see others of their own kind as "personal" and deserve 'their respect', well as matter of fact some of them used to think that some of their own species are not "personal" and enslaved them.
In absolute reality "personal" and "non-personal" do not exist, it only exist within human arrogant mindset.
Thus the question of whether God is "personal" or "non-personal" can be answered with God is BOTH and MORE...
I agree with you on this point, at least for the most part... I think there are some people who reject the concept of evolution, via natural selection, because they don't want to be linked and compared to "mere animals". Humans are naturally egotistical, and they tend to hold themselves 'above' every other species and aspect of existence. Therefore, when scientists propose the idea that we are all apes, some people become offended.
Well said,
In absolute reality, human are animals, human are mammals and human are primates.Also, some people look at the complexity of life, and they determine that humans (and even some animals) are far too complex to have stemmed from a single-celled organism. These people often don't understand how evolution works, and they tend to make references to the implausibility of "an ape giving birth to a human" - which actually isn't how the evolutionary process works at all.
Again, many of them reject it because they don't understand it. I do believe that many (if not most) of the people who reject the notion of evolution do so due to the Biblical "Adam and Eve" story. However, this isn't the reason all of them reject it, and I think the root problem ultimately stems from the egotistical nature of humans, who refuse to be "lowered" to the level of animals, rather than the mythological Biblical story.
Evolution happened to everything in this universe.
And a species called human makes up very very very tiny winy small part of it...
Whether they reject or accept such fact is irrelevant.. as irrelevant as their presence on this universe.Salam / Peace
-
I don't think Evolution theory should be labeled a theory.. how do we falsify it? It is still a hypothesis.
Ignoring that, Darwinian evolution is not possible.
It breaks two laws of science.
-
The law of Biogenesis - Life comes from life. The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous. Do you guys know how complex even the simplest unicellular organism is? Natural processes cannot accomplish this. This is why all these multiverse theories are popping up, even with the vastness of our universe it is extremely unlikely for life to come about in this manner, so now they say "well there could be an infinite amount of universes and our universe is one of the few(perhaps only) with life."
-
The 2nd law of thermodynamics - You can't get order from disorder only greater disorder.
Then you have the chirality problem, orphan genes.. the list goes on.
This article is very informative and relatively easy to understand
http//www.newgeology.us/presentation32.htmlAnd here's one highlighting just how flaky the "theory" is given evidence from the Cambrian explosion.
http//www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_problems_w059921.htmlI guess divinely guided evolution is possible but I don't see the evidence for it.
-
-
The law of Biogenesis - Life comes from life. The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.
Salamun Alaikum Brother.
The so called "ridiculous" idea appears to be also supported by the Qur'an statements like every creature was created from water (2445) or humans were created from clay (2312).
The idea that Qur'an supports the theory of evolution is supported widely even in some cases by traditionalists. For example you may check the site below
http//www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/October/Creation%20and%20Evolution%20in%20the%20Holy%20Qur'an%20By%20Hassan%20El-Najjar.htm
Best regards,
Arman -
Peace,
There is noting ridiculous about that. Of course God had to make a trap for those who do not have faith so that they believe in natural evolution through natural selection. There is still logical fallacies to why everything could just seem to know how to assemble. God is required no matter how you twist and turn it.
And evolution is true and science proves it too so we cannot deny the phenomenon. It just renders God even more amazing when reflecting upon nature, evolution and the universe.
God bless you
-
There is noting ridiculous about that. Of course God had to make a trap for those who do not have faith so that they believe in natural evolution through natural selection.
Natural selection or God's selection it doesn't matter as the selection was, is and will happen.
For human, herewith the 'law', the 'criteria' to be selected.
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth."
-- Matt 55Meek = lowly, loving, humble, gentle, peaceful.
The opposite those who are proud, harsh, hating, warmonger, oppressor shall become extinct and shall not inherit the earth.
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar,
Your response was not exactly what I was thinking of. I meant that the illusion of a natural evolution is a trap for the people or God could have made so it is obvious that it was all already evolved at a breaking point in history. But it was not.
God bless you
-
Salamun Alaika Brother MoF.
Not Sure what you mean by trap... it is not clear from your response whether you believe in the evolution process or not.
What we observe in the natural word - the evidences from fossil records and DNA records of verious species is the manifestation of the truth (not a trap). Natural world does not lie - falshood is creation of men. I do not believe Allah is playing a game of cat and mouse with us.
The truth is from your Master - so do not be among the doubters.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Peace,
I give up here because I seem not to have been able to convey the meaning twice.
-
<b>Salamun Alaikum Brother.
The so called "ridiculous" idea appears to be also supported by the Qur'an statements like every creature was created from water (2445) or humans were created from clay (2312).</b>
Selam brother.
Like I said above(in less words), if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.
But this is what the thread starter asked
<b>I would like to know my the point of view of the members of this site on the subject of Evolution.
By Evolution I mean , Darwinian evolution, evolution by natural selection.</b>
I only read the first 2 pages before I got bored then I read the last page, so my apologies if the topic has shifted. I stand by my claim that it is ridiculous to believe that evolution through natural selection and random mutation is possible.
<b>The idea that Qur'an supports the theory of evolution is supported widely even in some cases by traditionalists. For example you may check the site below</b>
Lots of things are supported widely bro, without facts it means nothing.
https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
^ this is a good article highlighting the logical flaws in giving weight to consensus opinions.
It's kinda long so I'll highlight the most relevant parts
<i>I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. <b>Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.</b> Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. <b>Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right</b>, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. <b>In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.</b> The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. <b>In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.</b> There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. <b>Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion</b> despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. <b>Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him.</b> There was, in addition, a social factor?southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result?despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and <b>Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology?until 1961,</b> when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. <b>Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy? The list of consensus errors goes on and on.</b>
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. <b>Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.</b> It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.</i>
Anyway, about the link you gave me.. It seems like the guy is trying to force pieces of a puzzle no matter if they fit or not.
<b>Say "Travel through the Earth and see how He began the Creation. Then, Allah makes the latter Creation. Allah is capable of (doing) everything" (Al-'Ankaboot, 29 20). </b>
This states the Allah makes the latter creation, so it cannot be referring to Darwinian evolution.
<b>Have not those who disbelieve seen (known) that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them (from each other), and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe? (Al-Anbiya', 21 30). </b>
How does "creating every living thing out of water" mean evolution..?
<b>O humans! Be pious (careful of your duty) to your Lord, Who created you from a single self (soul), and from it He created its mate, and from them He has spread a multitude of men and women (Al-Nissa, 4 1).</b>
This is obviously referring to Adam and Eve and their offspring. The author goes on to say
<b>This verse tells us that the beginning of life was a single self (soul), then its mate came out of it. Biological science tells us that the earliest form of life was represented by single cell organisms found in water, then these multiplied by splitting themselves. With the course of time, reproduction evolved to become by mating pairs, instead of the archaic forms of splitting or dividing.</b>
So from "single self" we get single celled organism? Then he goes on to say that they multiplied by splitting themselves, but the verse clearly says that God "created its mate".
And then it says "from them He has spread a multitude of men and women". This is obviously referring to sexual reproduction when if it was referring to unicellular life it should be asexual reproduction. Also unicellular life does not have gender.
<b>We know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy Qur?an, not any human being.</b>
Sure, if you don't count arachnids and insects.. Also, birds are bipedal, I'm sure the Prophet was not a stranger to birds.
<b>32.7. (Allah is He) who has made everything He created better, and He began the creation of the human (being) out of clay.</b>
I can see how this could point to evolution, but still not Darwinian evolution. I could also make a case against it.
<i>"Here we report exceptionally preserved fossil eyes from the Early Cambrian (~515 million years ago) Emu Bay Shale of South Australia, revealing that <b>some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses</b> and a specialized ?bright zone?.
...
The arrangement and size of the lenses indicate that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light. The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and <b>are as advanced as those of many living forms."</b></i>
http//www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7353/abs/nature10097.html
Basically the oldest known bug eyes(from 515 mya) are as complex as many modern bug eyes.
<b>50.15. Were We then tired with the first creation? (No), they (nonbelievers) are in confusion about a new creation (resurrection).
This verse confirms the meaning included in 32.7, saying that there was a first creation, the creation of life, which then evolved according to a long process of learning how to adaptat to the environemnt.</b>
It doesn't confirm 327 at all, it is talking about different things. 327 is talking about how God created Humanity, 5015 is talking about our resurrection from what I can tell.
<b>The scientific evidence available to us tells us that the beginning of life was in an environment similar to swamps, which are composed basically of water and and earth matter. This produced clay, where the first forms of life began in the form of single cell organisms. </b>
What is the scientific evidence suggesting that this is how life started? Also clay only has trace amounts of organic matter.
<b>71.14. He has created you in diverse (and successive) stages.</b>
I can also see how this could indicate that divinely guided evolution is true, but it is still at odds with Darwinian evolution. But it could also be referring to the developmental stages of a human from zygote to embryo to fetus etc.
Anyway it is a long article so I hope you'll forgive me but I'm going to stop my analysis here. If there is a point you think stands out feel free to highlight it and I will do my best to answer.
-
Now I will make more clear why I think it is ridiculous to believe that life just came together in a swamp or any body of water by it self, which is what Darwinian evolution implies.
orphan genes
Orphan genes are genes that do not share homologues in genomes of other organisms. This means that they cannot be linked to other lineages based on gene sequences. Depending on what analysis of known species? genomes that is examined, it will indicate orphan genes constitute somewhere between 1-30% of the functional genes in the genome, where 10-20% as the most accepted range.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_geneSo all creatures have these orphan genes(10-20% of the genome) that cannot be traced to any other creature. So much for the scientific consensus that we share 98% of our genes with chimps ey? When you factor in "junk" dna the percentage we share drops even lower.
Chirality
Chirality referres to "handedness".
From the link I gave in my first post
<i>"Amino acid molecules that form proteins, and nucleotide molecules that form DNA and RNA resist combining at any temperature. To combine, they need the help of mechanisms in a living cell or a biochemist in an organic chemistry laboratory.17 It means that nothing happens in the primeval soup, the pond of chemicals where evolutionists believe life began.
DNA is made of only right-handed versions of nucleotides, while proteins are made of only left-handed versions of amino acids. Yet any random chemical reaction that produced nucleotides or amino acids would make an equal mix of left and right-handed versions of each. <b> Even if the thousands of nucleotides needed to form a DNA molecule, or the hundreds of amino acids needed to form a protein molecule were able to combine from the mix, they would be a jumble of left and right-handed versions that could not function at all. </b> This is the problem of "chirality", and evolutionists have never been able to solve it."</i>
According to Darwinian evolution everything evolved from the most basic unicelled organisms. These organisms came from amino acids and proteins etc. The claim is that they don't know how but these ingredients somehow gave rise to the first unicellular life, some claim the water was struck by lightning etc.
Here is the problem with that story..
Replication, recombination, and repair
Transcription
Cell cycle control, mitosis, and meiosis
Defense mechanisms
Cell wall/membrane biogenesis
Signal transduction mechanisms
Intracellular trafficking and secretion
Translation
Post-translational modification, protein turnover, chaperones
Energy production and conversion
Carbohydrate transport and metabolism
Amino acid transport and metabolism
Nucleotide transport and metabolism
Coenzyme transport and metabolism
Lipid transport and metabolism
Inorganic ion transport and metabolism
Secondary metabolite biosynthesis, transport, and catabolism^ That is a list of all the things required(as far as we know, there might be more added to the list as our knowledge increases) for a cell to function. They must all be present in the cell at the same time, take away any of them and the cell is destroyed, there is no known way for this to happen through gradual evolution.
Currently the story is that all these "building blocks of life" were floating around in water then something happened(like lightning striking the water) and all these proteins and amino acids magically fell into place and formed everything listed above. So I'll say it again, the idea that this can happen through natural processes is ridiculous.
-
Salam brother.
Thanks for your detailed reply. I am impressed with your vast knowledge in the subject. bravo
Allow me to humbly clarify what I tried to mean. Let me start with quoting the exact words that you said - The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous. What I saw in this particular statement is a rejection of the proposition that organic life can form out of inorganic matter (a rejection which you continue to defend in you last post). I simply wanted to highlight that Qur'an also suggests men were created from wet clay (inorganic matter). So if you are refuting the very idea that it is possible to have life from non living object then that may be against what Qur'an says. So while you reject evolution - which you have all the right to do - just clarify in your mind what is the alternate theory that you do believe and make sure you are evaluating both theories with equal rigor of intellect.
This brings me to your following remark
...if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.
Let me make a few comments on this statement.
- Yes, you specified quite clearly what I am suggesting.
- Do you also believe in above or something different?
If you believe in something different -
I beg you to teach me what you believe - with equal level of intellectual rigor that you apply on the theory of evolution. I am eager to learn the alternate theory. If the alternate theory is God created a human shape from clay - literally with His own hands - and then literally breathed life to this doll and then transported two living dolls either in a spaceship or some sort of "inter-dimensional portal" to earth - and then these two humans managed to survive in this hostile world and managed to give rise to human race - Then my friend I am sorry, this theory does not pass the test of my intellect based on what I observe in this world. I believe in my God who gave me my intellect and conscience - I submit to God by upholding my intellect and conscience. Fortunately for me when I read Qur'an I find no compelling reason to accept any theory which my intellect does not support.
If, however, you believe in something similar to me, that is, God created us through the process of evolution -
Then my brother - what is the whole point of debate? I believe in gravity, don't you? I believe two objects of mass attract each other because God has created this rule and every object follows this rule. But for that reason I do not debate the theory of gravity and say I rather believe in "Guided Gravity" or "Intelligent Gravity". If I can believe in gravity as is - as scientists describe it and then also know inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way... what is the problem with accepting evolution / natural selection as described by scientists and then knowing inside my heart - this is because God wanted it this way. Qur'an asks us to travel through earth and see how God began creation - not read the holy book and see how God started creation.
We need to remember - scientists deal with the observable world - they work with hard data and physical evidence. Allah is in the unobservable realm (al ghaib). We can feel Him, we can know Him - but can never make Him subject to the microscope of scientists. I know you are extremely critical about the idea of consensus for scientists - but as humans that's the best we have got at the moment. So why not accept the current scientific consensus of collective human intellect as the best possible interpretation of the material world (the What and How part of it) until a new consensus develops; and at the same time rely on our conscience and the guidance of the holy books to understand the unobservable aspects of it (the Why part of it). That is the approach we are taking about every other scientific theory, why does evolution needs to be different?
So, as far as I am concerned, did life just came from some "primordial soup"? Yes, most likely it did (until proven otherwise). And because this phenomenon is so unbelievably "cool" it increases my faith in my God who said it to be and it was.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Indeed, great post, Bobafett.
There has been a phenomenon in science which has been very detrimental to it and it has been the creation the star scientist. It may have started with Darwin.
Ideologically, Darwin arranged very well the imperial designs and mindset. So he was made a star. To say "evolution" is to glorify Darwin, but he didn't invent evolution and what he did was to push an idea of evolution which matched ideollogically imperial designs. There are vested interests in maintaning "Darwinian" evolution. Many scientists worked hard on theories of evolution, but all of them were pushed out as if they came from lepers. On the other hand, "darwinian" evolution has been rearranged and rearranged, because the flaws kept cropping up, but the stardom of the man and his "natural selection" (before it was de survival of the fittest) had to be preserved at whatever cost. Yes, very fit Darwin and his managers survivin and surviving.
Very well said the part about the "consensus" science. The examples given are good but I remember the Ptolemy atronomy, with the earth as fixed center, how many centuries that consensus in science did last? It was science right? It must have been true...
The fact is that finding out how life started scientifically (as is the case of many other things) is very difficult, and that there is no reason why anybody should get desperate because we do not kinow, nor since we do not know are we under the obligation of clinging to whatever theory they give us to feel that we are above ignorance and know everything.
Of course we do not know everything, nor will ever, but we may keep learning humbly through time. What we do not need is to adopt anything as "scientific" when we have no certain and verifiable knowledge of it nor start crusades against the ignorant based on things we ourselves do not know.
As to the Qur'an we should BEWARE. We should not be in a hurry to make it match any current scientific fashion, and anything that is undemonstrated and unverified and still pushed down our throats as knowledge, is nothing but scientific fashion. The Qur'an is right, but if it speaks about things of which we yet have no knowledge we are not going to recognize them. To arrange the words of the Qur'an so that they fit the current scientific fashions is cheating ourselves and doing a flawed service to the Qur'an and to those who do not believe in it confirming that the Qur'an is bullshit. We should not tie the Qur'an to any "scientific" purported knowledge. When the Qur'an shows such knowledge and that knowledge really exists if it fits, it fits seamlessly, no need to arrange anything in the Qur'an at all. We may not be sure but the Qur'an is perfectly sure about what it says, it does not hesitate, show gaps or needs to tread carefully. It has knoweledge and it is thorough knowledge.
Just one thing, Bobafett, for the sake of thoroughness there is not talk of Adam and Eve in the Qur'an.
And thanks for the texts quoted.
Evolution is a fact indeed, but where and how it applies is something else. There have been many theories about it. For a long time, for instance, and after the "darwinian redemption" the formula "function creates the organ" has been despised and ridiculed. But at cell level even atomic level it seems that it was not completely wrong after all and that randomness is not the cause of everything, may be it not the cause of anything at all.
Those who believe in what the Qur'an says, could hardly believe in randomness as the universe ruler, at least that is my feeling and thinking.
Salaam