Theory of Evolution anyone ?
-
The problem is that it is the clergy that causes people to discard established faith because they give such a pathetic impression with rituals and stuff. It is the lesser intelligent people who often mess with religion and turn it into something reminding more of Pagan worship.
The religion of Paganism (Arabic paganism, Greek paganism, Roman paganism, Canaan paganism etc..)
consists of 100% rites and 0% morality code.Spiritualism & Philosophical & Social welfare / justice movement (e.g. Buddhism, Taoism, Abolitionism) consists of 100% morality code and 0% rites.
In between there are; Ancient Egyptianism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Christianism, Islamism, Hinduism which contains a mixed of morality and rites.
However... from the Tanakh, unlike paganistic gods, YHVH loves justice and good deeds much more than ritual observance..
"To do what is right and just is more acceptable to YHVH than sacrifice."
Proverbs 213"When you spread out your hands in prayer, I hide my eyes from you; even when you offer many prayers, I am not listening. Your hands are full of blood! Wash and make yourselves clean. Take your evil deeds out of my sight; stop doing wrong. Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow."
Isaiah 116I suppose Einstein refrained from affiliate himself with any of the sects because he was simply too intelligent to see any of them as right. Because none of them are right not even today 2014.
Einstein is not religious and/or a holy-bookist.. or in other words, he didn't idolized any books.
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me to) change this."
-- A. EinsteinDefinitely he's an infidel of Judaism
"For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions, And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. "As far as my experience goes, they are no better than other human groups, although they are protected from the worst cancers by a lack of power. Otherwise I cannot see anything 'chosen' about them."
-- A. EinsteinYet he's still believe in a God, although it's not a 'personal God'.
"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God."
-- A. EinsteinAnd similar to Abe Lincoln, he's a determinist..
?God does not play dice with the universe.?
"You believe in a God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world which objectively exists, and which I in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture. I firmly believe, but I hope that someone will discover a more realistic way, or rather a more tangible basis than it has been my lot to find. Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice game, although I am well aware that some of our younger colleagues interpret this as a consequence of senility."
-- A. EinsteinAnd he believes a 'dogmatic organized religion, instilling a set of belief through force' will soon face it's demise.
"In my opinion, an autocratic system of coercion soon degenerates; force attracts men of low morality"
-- A. EinsteinIn summary this is his religion, upholding morality as the highest priority, following what YHVH has ordered
My religiosity consists in a humble admiration of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance ? but for us, not for God.
-- A. EinsteinI shared many common views with Einstein, not because "Einstein did said so", but my own summary based on my own observations 'coincidentally' inline with his view.
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar,
But what remains of the teaching (torah), Gospel or a book called Quran in themselves teach no rituals. It is the sects evolving from interpreting them who have made the rituals and attributing them to God and said "God told us to do so"
The book called Quran is a very different book if you put yourself into it beneath all that crap they assign to the words. You can write a book in elaboration to what they say about the trilateral s - l - w despite it being an innocent word that cannot imply too much on its own.
Have faith
-
It was this article. I can't find the response I read, but there are a few responses, e.g. this one.
Thanks for sharing the links.
-
But what remains of the teaching (torah), Gospel or a book called Quran in themselves teach no rituals. It is the sects evolving from interpreting them who have made the rituals and attributing them to God and said "God told us to do so"
All of the 'verse injection' in all those books usually related to either 'rituals' or 'sanctuary/relics/people worshiping'. (e.g. temple in mount Girzim, temple in Jerusalem, temple in Mecca).
All were being put there in the books by the 'priestly' class.
It's an endeavor for them to 'stay relevant', to 'stay in power'.
Because without any rituals, there will not be any religion.
And without any religion there will not be any priest.Having said that, all of the rites it self is not necessarily bad.
The priests have to earn some living somehow right?
As long as it doesn't violate any morality code... such as..."'The people of Judah have done evil in my eyes, declares YHVH. They have set up their detestable things in the house that bears my Name and have defiled it. They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Hinnom in order to burn their sons and daughters in the fire, a thing I did not command; I never entertained the thought."
-- Book of Jeremiah 730 -
Peace BobaFett and everyone,
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."
From my understanding of the Quran, it disproves the notion of separate universes (e.g. multiverse theories). Even if there are several/many universes, I think that they are all part of one vast and interdependent/interconnected creation. Because the God is the creator of everything (see verse 6102). And since there is only one God, all creation seems to be part of a unified whole/oneness. Therefore it appears that separateness is an illusion.
In verse 1316, the Quran suggests that there is only one creation (a unified whole). And in verse 1316, the Quran seems to disprove the notion of several/many separate universes (e.g. multiverse theories).
Quran 1316 Say "Who is the Lord of the heavens and the earth?" Say "God." Say "Have you taken besides Him allies who do not possess for themselves any benefit or harm?" Say "Is the blind and the seer the same? Or do the darkness and the light equate? Or have they set up partners with God who have created like His creation, so the creations all seemed the same to them?" Say "God has created all things, and He is the One, the Supreme."
-
The genetic similarities found between human being, chimpanzees and gorillas forced the scientists to believe that human being originated from chimps. Accordingly scientists and anthropologists put forward the theory of evolution. Recently by examining the fossils found in Africa, scientists recognize 15-20 different such species which are believed to be ancestors of early human. But scientists debate over how to identify and classify particular species of early human. Latest findings contradict the theory of evolution and indicate that human being originated from a single source.
There are millions of species of living beings under water and over surface. The theory which accounts for origin of human being, should also be responsible to explain the origin of all other living beings.
Now let us examine some of the facts on the basis of human observations. We have record of observations of at least last two thousand years. There is no record of any intellectual or structural change in any of the species of the animal kingdom. Had this evolution theory been possible we would have certainly observed some changes structural or genetic in some of the species in the last 2000 years. There is no record of any habitual change in any of the advanced species.
Most current studies with strong scientific evidences differ from the above evolution theory. Genetic and archeological evidences do not support the Darwinian theory. These evidences predict that human being originated from a single source and the place of origin was east Africa with first migration out of Africa taking place around 60,000 years ago.
?And Allah has created every animal from water of them there are some that creep on their bellies; some that walk on two legs; and some that walk on four. Allah creates what He wills; for verily Allah has power over all things?. (Trans A. Yusuf Ali)]
O mankind! reverence your Guardian-Lord, who created you from a single person, created, of like nature, His mate, and from them twain scattered (like seeds) countless men and women;- reverence Allah, through whom ye demand your mutual (rights), and (reverence) the wombs (That bore you) for Allah ever watches over you.
The Quran also predicts the origin of human being from a single source. Moreover The Quran clearly states that before the creation of human being on earth, vegetation, water - air and all other necessary environment was created. The Quranic statement about the origin of living beings on earth is complete compared to all other religious scriptures. -
Shalom Aleikhem,
The genetic similarities found between human being, chimpanzees and gorillas forced the scientists to believe that human being originated from chimps. .........................................................
That's not true. Evolutionary biologists don't believe that we evolved from chimps. Both Chimps and Human beings evolved from common ancestor which is very different from saying that we evolved from them. Much like you and your cousin descended from common forefathers, that is not to say that you came from your cousin.
As for the rest of your post
What you are saying isn't what the scientific community is saying. You seem to be making stuff up! We do not have genetic basis for the conclusion that the Darwinian theory is correct??????? Are you kidding me? Here is something from Francis Collin (administrator of the Human Genome Project)
As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that.
"God Is Not Threatened by Our Scientific Adventures", interview by Laura Sheahen, Beliefnet (undated)Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.
"Collins Why this scientist believes in God", editorial, CNN (April 6, 2007)Archaeological evidences refute evolution?
Apes - humans
Ardipithecus ramidus ~4.4 million years ago
Ardipithecus ramidus had a brain the size of a chimp's, but probably walked upright on the ground, while still able to go on all fours in the trees, where it would find its opposable big toe useful (Gibbons, 2009).
Australopithecus afarensis ~3.6 mya
Australopithecus afarensis was a more advanced walker, with nongrasping feet (White et al, 2009), but it still had the brain size of a chimpanzee (Dawkins, 2009). Probably not a direct ancestor of modern humans (Rak et al, 2007).
Australopithecus africanus ~3 myaSimilar.
Homo habilis ~2 mya?
Homo habilis had a brain about 50% bigger than a chimp's. The fossils are found with a variety of stone tools; this is the earliest human which we're sure used tools (Coyne, 2009).Homo erectus ~1 mya
A tool-maker, Homo erectus had a brain size of about 1,000 cc, still smaller than our own (Dawkins, 2009).Homo heidelbergensis ~0.5 mya
Homo heidelbergensis had a brain size approaching our own, and shows a mix of Homo erectus and modern human features (Coyne, 2009).Fish - Tetrapods
Eusthenopteron ~385 million years ago
A pelagic fish, Eusthenopteron is probably representative of the group from which tetrapods evolved. It had a tetrapod-like skull and spine (Prothero, 2007).Panderichthys ~385 mya
Panderichthys had a tetrapod-like braincase and tetrapod-like teeth, and had also lost its dorsal and anal fins (Prothero, 2007).Tiktaalik ~375 mya
Though still a water-dweller, Tiktaalik had fins that were halfway towards being feet, and ears capable of hearing in air or water (Prothero, 2007). It was capable of crawling around in very shallow water, and it had a neck, unlike fish but like tetrapods (Coyne, 2009).Ventastega ~365 mya
The bones of Ventastega are intermediate between Tiktaalik and Acanthostega (Ahlberg et al, 200. Sadly, the fossil is incomplete and we can't see its fins/feet.Acanthostega ~365 mya
Possessing four definite legs, Acanthostega was presumably capable of movement over land (Coyne, 2009), though the legs were still better suited for crawling along the bottom of the water (Prothero, 2007). Its tail was still adapted for propulsion through water, and it still had gills (Ridley, 2004).Ichthyostega ~365 mya
Slightly more like a land animal, Ichthyostega had powerful shoulders implying it did indeed use its legs to move over land, at least sometimes (Clack, 2005). Even now, the skull still closely resembled that of Eusthenopteron (Futuyma, 2005).Pederpes ~350 mya
The foot of Pederpes "has characteristics that distinguish it from the paddle-like feet of the Devonian forms and resembles the feet of later, more terrestrially adapted Carboniferous forms" (Clack, 2002).Dinosaurs - birds
Anchiornis ~155 million years ago
Although many feathered dinosaurs are known, Anchiornis is the first to be found that probably predates Archaeopteryx. The feathers were "not obviously flight-adapted" (Hu et al, 2009).Archaeopteryx ~145 mya
The famous Archaeopteryx had feathers and was probably capable of at least gliding, but it also had dinosaur-like teeth, claws, and a long bony tail. Its skeleton was "almost identical to that of some theropod dinosaurs" (Coyne, 2009). Precisely how closely related it is to the main line of bird evolution remains the subject of controversy (Xu et al, 2011).Confuciusornis ~125 mya
Confuciusornis had a bird-like tail and a pygostyle, which is a feature of modern birds. It retained dinosaur-like claws (Prothero, 2007). It had strong shoulder bones, but was probably not capable of true flapping flight (Senter, 2006). It may have glided. It is the earliest known bird with a toothless beak, but other lineages continued to have teeth for a long time.Sinornis ~110 mya?
Sinornis "still had teeth, an unfused tarsometatarsus, and an unfused pelvis" (Prothero, 2007) but resembled modern birds in other ways, with reduced vertebrae, a flexible wishbone, a shoulder joint adapted for flying, and hand bones fused into a carpometacarpus (Prothero, 2007).Vorona ~80 mya?
The legs of Vorona are all that we have (Benton, 2005), but they show a combination of bird characteristics and maniraptoran (dinosaur) characteristics (Forster et al, 1996).Ichthyornis ~80 mya
A strong flyer, Ichthyornis was very nearly a modern bird (Prothero, 2007), and yet it still had teeth.Synapsids - mammals
Archaeothyris ~305 million years ago
Mostly lizard-like. However Archaeothyris is one of the earliest known synapsids; a group defined by possession of a single temporal fenestra (Ridley, 2004).Dimetrodon ~280 mya
Dimetrodon had specialised canine teeth (Prothero, 200 akin to those of modern mammals.Lycaenops ~260 mya
More mammal-like, especially in how it held its limbs closer to its body like modern mammals, rather than sprawled to the side like Dimetrodon (Prothero, 2007). It still had a great many "primitive" features, such as ribs in the lumbar area (Prothero, 2007).Thrinaxodon ~245 mya
Had the beginning of a secondary palate in its skull (Prothero, 2007); in modern mammals, this allows eating and breathing at the same time, and is a sign of a more active lifestyle (Ridley, 2004). Its more advanced skull also allowed it to chew its food; and indeed it had premolars and molars with which to do so (Prothero, 2007). The skeleton was not yet fully mammal-like, but it had lost those lumbar ribs.Probainognathus ~225 mya?
Probainognathus still possessed a reptile-like jaw articulation (Macdonald et al 2009) but also had "the initiation of the articulation which was later to become the more highly developed glenoid-condyle articulation of the mammal" (Romer, 1969). It had a well developed zygomatic arch (Macdonald et al 2009). However, its braincase was very unlike that of modern mammals (Romer, 1969).Diarthrognathus ~210 mya?
The fascinating Diarthrognathus had a jaw that contained both the old reptile-like joint as well as the new mammalian joint (Prothero, 2007).Land mammals - Whales and dolphins
Indohyus ~48 million years ago
Although only a cousin species of the ancestor of whales, Indohyus had bones denser than normal mammals, indicating it was partially aquatic heavy bones are good ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its ears shared a feature with modern whales a thickened wall of bone which assists in underwater hearing; non-cetaceans don't have this (Thewissen et al, 2009).Pakicetus ~52 mya
Perhaps the actual ancestor, Pakicetus was probably semi-aquatic; like Indohyus, it had dense bones for ballast (Thewissen et al, 2009). Its body was "wolf-like" but the skull had eye sockets adapted for looking upwards, presumably at objects floating above it (Thewissen et al, 2009). Although initially known from just a skull, many more bones were found later (Thewissen et al, 2001).Ambulocetus ~50 mya
With a streamlined, elongated skull and reduced limbs, Ambulocetus probably spent most of its time in shallow water. Its reduced limbs meant it could only waddle on land (Coyne, 2009). It resembled a crocodile in some ways.Rodhocetus ~45 mya
The nostrils of Rodhocetus have started to move backwards (towards the blowhole position) and the skeleton indicates a much stronger swimmer (Coyne, 2009). On land it would struggle, moving "somewhat like a modern eared seal or sea lion" (Gingerich et al, 2001). Its teeth were simpler than its predecessors (Futuyma, 2005), a trend that continued to the present.Maiacetus ~47 mya
Seems similar to Rodhocetus. One fossil was found with what appeared to be a foetus, in a position indicating head-first birth (Gingerich et al, 2009) unlike modern whales. However this is disputed; the "foetus" might just be a partially digested meal (Thewissen and McLellan, 2009).Basilosaurus ~40 mya
The whale-like, fully aquatic Basilosaurus had almost lost its (tiny) hindlimbs, but they had not yet vanished entirely (Prothero, 2007).Dorudon ~40 mya
Also fully aquatic, Dorudon also had tiny hind limbs, which "barely projected from the body" (Futuyma, 2005).Aetiocetus ~25 mya
The blowhole in Aetiocetus is about halfway to its position in modern whales on top of the head. Aetiocetus also represents the transition from toothed whales to the filter-feeding baleen whales, being similar to baleen whales in most respects, but possessing teeth (Van Valen, 196.Protohorse - Horses
Hyracotherium ~60 million years ago
A cousin species of the ancestor of horses. The forelimb of Hyracotherium had four toes (Raven et al, 200.Protorohippus ~50 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had four toes.Mesohippus ~35 mya
Bigger. The forelimb had three toes (Raven et al, 200.Miohippus ~35 mya
The skull and snout of Miohippus are becoming more horse-like (Prothero, 2007).Parahippus ~23 mya
The skeleton of Parahippus was more adapted to long-distance running, for escaping predators in an open environment (Evans, 1992). About this time, grasslands were becoming common in North America, where horses evolved (Raven et al, 200. They would later die out in America (Dawkins, 2009).Merychippus ~17 mya
With bigger teeth, Merychippus was more adapted to the grazing lifestyle of modern horses. Earlier species were likely browsers that ate leaves, but Merychippus could also eat grass (Raven et al, 200.Pliohippus ~12 mya
Pliohippus still had three toes, but only the central toe touched the ground; the others being too small. This was probably not a direct ancestor of modern horses.Dinohippus ~5 mya
Some specimens of Dinohippus have three toes; but some have one, like modern horses (Florida Museum of Natural History).Miscellaneous
Aardonyx, a proto-sauropod dinosaur that, though bipedal, could probably also walk on all fours (Yates et al, 2009). Contrary to what you might expect, in this case bipeds evolved to become quadrupeds.
Amphistium, an early flatfish, with eyes intermediate in position between an ordinary fish and a modern flatfish (Friedman, 200.
Claudiosaurus, an early relative of marine reptiles like plesiosaurs, but the limbs are not very specialised for swimming (Prothero, 2007).
Darwinopterus, a pterosaur, has the advanced skull and neck of the Pterodactyloidea group, but other traits (e.g. its long tail) are like the primitive Rhamphorhynchoid group (Lu et al, 2009).
Enaliarctos, an early seal, but with more primitive skull and feet (Prothero, 2007).
Eocaecilia, an early caecilian, but with limbs (Jenkins and Walsh, 1993).
Gerobatrachus, a transitional fossil between frogs and salamanders (Anderson et al, 200.
Haikouella, perhaps the earliest known chordate (Coyne, 2009).
Najash, an early snake. Had two hind limbs (Apesteguia and Hussam, 2006).
Odontochelys, an early turtle with "half a shell" and a long tail (Dawkins, 2009).
Pezosiren, an early manatee, but with legs rather than flippers (Prothero, 2007).
Protosuchus, a crocodile precursor but "smaller and much more lightly built" than modern crocodiles (Prothero, 2007).
Seymouria, a "mosaic of primitive tetrapod and advanced amniote characters" (Prothero, 2007).
Sphecomyrma, an early ant, with primitive features (Coyne, 2009).
Triadobatrachus, an early frog, but with more vertebrae, and possessing ribs, which modern frogs don't have (Benton, 2005).
List of relevant publications (to study the academic literature on the listed fossils)
Ahlberg PE, Clack JA, Luksevics E, Blom H, Zupins I (200 Ventastega curonica and the origin of tetrapod morphology. Nature 453(7199) 1199?1204.
Anderson JS, Reisz RR, Scott D, Frobisch NB, Sumida SS (200 A stem batrachian from the Early Permian of Texas and the origin of frogs and salamanders. Nature 453(7194) 515-518.
Apesteguia S, Hussam Z (2006) A Cretaceous terrestrial snake with robust hindlimbs and a sacrum. Nature 440(7087) 1037-1040 .
Benton MJ (2005) Vertebrate Palaeontology, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.
Clack JA (2002) An early tetrapod from 'Romer's Gap'. Nature 418(6893) 72-76 .
Clack JA (2005) Getting a Leg Up on Land. Scientific American 293(6) 100-107.
Coyne JA (2009) Why Evolution is True. Oxford Oxford University Press.
Dawkins R (2009) The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for Evolution. London Bantam Press.
Evans WE (1992) Horse Breeding and Management. New York Elsevier Science.
Florida Museum of Natural History (date unknown) Dinohippus.
Forster CA, Chiappe LM, Krause DW, Sampson SD (1996) The first Cretaceous bird from Madagascar. Nature 382(6591) 532-534.
Friedman M (200 The evolutionary origin of flatfish asymmetry. Nature 454(7201) 209-212 .
Futuyma DJ (2005) Evolution. Sunderland Sinauer.
Gibbons A (2009) A New Kind of Ancestor Ardipithecus Unveiled. Science 326(5949) 36-40.
Gingerich PD, Arif M, Clyde WC (1995) New Archaeocetes (Mammalia, Cetacea) from the Middle Eocene Domanda formation of the Sulaiman range, Pun Jab (Pakistan). Contributions from the Museum of Paleontology, The University of Michigan 29(11) 291-330.
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Zalmout IS, Khan IH, Malkani MS (2001) Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan. Science 293(553 2239-2242.
Gingerich PD, Ul-Haq M, Von Koenigswald W, Sanders WJ, Smith BH, Zalmout IS (2009) New Protocetid Whale from the Middle Eocene of Pakistan Birth on Land, Precocial Development, and Sexual Dimorphism. PLoS ONE 4(2) e4366.
Hu D, Hou L, Zhang L, Xu X (2009) A pre-Archaeopteryx troodontid theropod from China with long feathers on the metatarsus. Nature 461(7264) 640-643 .
Jenkins FA, Walsh DM (1993) An Early Jurassic caecilian with limbs. Nature 365(6443) 246-250 .
Lu J, Unwin DM, Jin X, Liu Y, Ji Q (2009) Evidence for modular evolution in a long-tailed pterosaur with a pterodactyloid skull. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Macdonald DW (ed.) (2009) The Encyclopedia of Mammals, 3rd edition. Oxford Oxford University Press.
MacFadden BJ (1986) Fossil Horses from "Eohippus" (Hyracotherium) to Equus Scaling, Cope's Law, and the Evolution of Body Size. Paleobiology 12(4) 355-369.
Niedzwiedzki G, Szrek P, Narkiewicz K, Narkiewicz M, Ahlberg PE (2010) Tetrapod trackways from the early Middle Devonian period of Poland. Nature 463(7277) 43-48.
Prothero DR (2007) Evolution What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters. New York Columbia University Press.
Prothero DR (200 What missing link? New Scientist 197(2645) 35-41.Rak Y, Ginzburg A, Geffen E (2007) Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(16) 6568-6572.
Raven PH, Johnson GB, Losos JB, Mason KA, Singer SR (200 Biology, 8th edition. New York McGraw Hill.
Ridley M (2004) Evolution, 3rd edition. Oxford Blackwell Publishing.
Romer AS (1969) Cynodont Reptile with Incipient Mammalian Jaw Articulation. Science 166(3907) 881-882 .
Senter P (2006) Scapular orientation in theropods and basal birds, and the origin of flapping flight. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 51(2) 305-313.
Thewissen JGM, Williams EM, Roe LJ, Hussain ST (2001) Skeletons of terrestrial cetaceans and the relationship of whales to artiodactyls. Nature 413(6853) 277-281.
Thewissen JGM, Cooper LN, George JC, Bajpai S (2009) From Land to Water the Origin of Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises. Evo Edu Outreach 2(2) 272-288.
Thewissen JGM, McLellan WA (2009) Maiacetus displaced fetus or last meal? PLoS ONE.
Van Valen L (196 Monophyly or Diphyly in the Origin of Whales. Evolution 22(1) 37-41.
White TD, Asfaw B, Beyene Y, Haile-Selassie Y, Lovejoy CO, Suwa G, WoldeGabriel G (2009) Ardipithecus ramidus and the Paleobiology of Early Hominids. Science 326(5949) 75-86.
Xu X, You H, Du K Han F (2011) An Archaeopteryx-like theropod from China and the origin of Avialae. Nature 475 465-470.
Yates AM, Bonnan MF, Neveling J, Anusuya C, Blackbeard MG (2009) A new transitional sauropodomorph dinosaur from the Early Jurassic of South Africa and the evolution of sauropod feeding and quadrupedalism. Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
Zimmer C (199 At the Water's Edge Macroevolution and the Transformation of Life. New York Free Press.
As we clearly see, the works of the experts in the field have validated and confirmed the theory of evolution. We found these fossils where the theory predicted them to be found. I have no idea why creationists still act like we haven't found anything. For the love of God!! This list of transitional fossils isn't even an exhaustive one. Yet, its enough to utterly destroy the claims of the creationists that only survive if taken on faith, not evidence.
The gene pool of ANY population on this planet is changing with every damn generation! How on earth did you conclude that nobody observed that in the last 2000 years? That is one of the most preposterous things I've ever heard. Or were you looking for some extreme changes like a group of us evolving wings? Given the time scale evolution works with, which can be billions of years, how would you expect to see dramatic changes in such a short span of time? The fact that the genetic codes are changing is the evidence that everything is changing. Just do some simple math and calculate the percentage difference over hundreds of millions of years and you'll know what I'm talking about.
Peace
------------ Student of Allah -
I believe in Evolution.
One reason why is because of our sexual behaviour.
Why are we so focused on the glutes?
We almost mystify a body part that consists only of muscles.
At least when talking about it physiologically. Honestly the bottom of a person is just a "part" of their body, what makes us humans think of it as something so special and significant that we get aroused by it up to the point of wanting to mate?I believe this has a whole lot to do with evolution. When thinking about the function of the Gluteus (maximus) it is to push the pelvic forward. Resulting in an upright posture. We humans at a certain time of evolution had the desire to stand up straight and that's probably why we decided to mate with partners who had a well formed/sized bottom.
Of course one could also argue that this "desire" to mate with people with a well-formed bottom was installed into our brains through a higher force.
This is not all too different from natural selection, mating partners found big gluted males/females more attractive, resulting into them getting more offspring.If you take a look at chimpanzees for example, they most of the time sit in a squat alike position.
Our ancestors must have had a similair posture.Standing straight might have had multiple advantages, two of them being.
Becoming a long time sprinter. Hunting gets easier.
Free hands, as they don't carry our body, we can start carrying objects in a better way.The myth of wider hips meaning that women are more fertile and can give better birth is in my opinion rubbish, and I don't see how that can be scientifically backed up.
But since I've criticized it now, I'll make sure to give this perspective/idea a change and spend some time researching on "how" this could be possibly correct.Of course all of this may be wrong as they are simply my opinion.
peace. peace -
Peace Study,
Thank you for your post, it was interesting to read your thoughts.
We must remember that procreational urges are a composite of many different biochemical and psychological factors. It would be an overtly simplified proposition to state that procreational urges in men rest solely on the shape of a woman's posterior. Furthermore, notwithstanding our male-dominated social structure, would it be right to say that female humans are propelled into procreational urges on account of the shape of a male's posterior?
We must also remember that the shape of a woman's posterior as a desirable feature of her body, can be, in many cases, a social construct. There is no evidence to suggest that there exists a code of DNA in our genome which causes all human beings in all cultures to respond sexually to the shape of a woman's posterior. In Medieval Europe, women with a plump frame were considered to be the highest ideal of beauty, whereas, in today's Western culture, women with a slender frame are considered to be so. Beauty and desirability are subjective.
Finally, we must also remember that explaining human procreational urges in biochemical and psychological terms makes sense only when we are talking about humans in their early stages of development. However, today's humans are less-governed by primal instincts, and we are more-able to override those urges because of the influence of social norms and practices. I'm sure most people will agree that we now place a greater emphasis on social and behavioural factors when seeking a mate, such as a person's character, their compatibility, their position in social hierarchy, etc. That's not to say that we completely overlook our ideas of physical beauty, but that it is no longer the sole determinant in procreational behaviour.
-
Peace, nobody knows how Allah creates. We all have our hypothesis and speculation, we are limited by our faculties, we don't even know what makes atoms cling to one another.
In the end the answer may just be an instruction from Allah "BE" and thus creation!
-
Peace, nobody knows how Allah creates. We all have our hypothesis and speculation, we are limited by our faculties, we don't even know what makes atoms cling to one another.
But of course, however that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand. I think God created human beings in order for us to think for ourselves, hence, try and find a solution to all we can. Having "God knows best" as an answer is very unscientific.
I have never read a scholarly work in which a theory is claimed to be correct. Such claims often come from unscientific reports.
Peace Study,
Thank you for your post, it was interesting to read your thoughts.
Peace uq,
why, thank you.
We must remember that procreational urges are a composite of many different biochemical and psychological factors. It would be an overtly simplified proposition to state that procreational urges in men rest solely on the shape of a woman's posterior.
I agree that our sexual desires are influenced by many a things.
I never meant to imply that the glutes are the only factor. However, I do consider it to be the most significant aspect in regard to (sexual) stimuli.
It's not simply male interest in female glutes.
But also female interest in male glutes. Although I believe this desire to be often left secret.
I totally agree on cultural influence in regard to how our expectations/desires form. For example the idea of a man having big powerfull glutes is considered weird.
What's actually weird though, is that such a crucial muscle (let alone for the sake of health) is expected to stay small in men, and the rest of their body is expected to be muscular.
I could even imagine that culture plays a role in not letting women understand their own desire in physique in which men have powerfull glutes. This idea stems from me having read many comments regarding how women do NOT want their partners to have big glutes, although inbetween these comments were many women who expressed a desire for men with big glutes. (a very subjective hypothesis for which I have absolutely zero reliability or validity)Furthermore, notwithstanding our male-dominated social structure, would it be right to say that female humans are propelled into procreational urges on account of the shape of a male's posterior?
The selection of partners from a female point of view is much more complex than vice-versa.
Not only today (which is not all too different from how it used to be in a natural environment) but all throughout the existence of humankind.
This is actually a field which's being highly researched https//scholar.google.de/scholar?q=female+partner+selection&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwil_uOSyvPKAhXwbZoKHXwQAbAQgQMIHTAAMost powerfull arguments in my opinion are
"The willingness and ability of a man to provide for a woman and her children."
Nowadays that means being rich.
"The willingness and ability of a man to protect a woman and her children."
Nowadays that means being rich.
"The willingness and ability of a man to engage in direct parenting activities such as teaching, nurturing and providing social support and opportunities."
https//books.google.de/books?hl=en&lr=&id=SxX4gRzOS6oC&oi=fnd&pg=PA267&dq=female+partner+selection+evolution&ots=Bh2q4D2LxN&sig=N_mVNTwNKemQshk8eHBBxseglFk#v=onepage&q=female%20partner%20selection%20evolution&f=falseIt's often been argued that the selection of men and women are different.
Men are more physical, they want flesh.
Women have developed a more empathical mind in order to understand what men are going to be like after marriage, they're more complex.
This doesn't mean that a men can not be empathical, nor does it mean that women don't have a desire for well build men.We must also remember that the shape of a woman's posterior as a desirable feature of her body, can be, in many cases, a social construct. There is no evidence to suggest that there exists a code of DNA in our genome which causes all human beings in all cultures to respond sexually to the shape of a woman's posterior. In Medieval Europe, women with a plump frame were considered to be the highest ideal of beauty, whereas, in today's Western culture, women with a slender frame are considered to be so. Beauty and desirability are subjective.
Most of the DNA is left unexplained.
Junk DNA is most likely not Junk DNA. Meaning that over 85% of our DNA is unknown.
And let's be fair, I've never heard of DNA sequences explaining human behaviour, have you?The sole reason why females have bigger buttocks (not saying glutes(=muscle)) is because of estrogen. Estrogen causes fat to be stored in the buttocks, hips and thighs.
Throughout the later stages of evolution of humankind there have probably been more women than men, reasons why
Health complications are more likey to occur in male babies.
Men were hunters, them dying was a more likely thing to happen.
Which means that men could choose which women they wanted to mate with. Bigger rivalry between women then there is today.
If I have been correct in my statements before than that would make it very likely that women with bigger buttocks to have been the winners, in the sense of them being the one who had gotten children who were raised/nurtured/taught by their fathers, or simply, survived so that they too (with their big bottoms) could reproduce.Plump women have big buttocks as well.
This argument does not deny what I said. On the contrary (Estrogen), the "attractive" areas will look even bigger.
All throughout history women with big buttocks were considered attractive. Oldest known statue Venus of Willendorf, https//lh5.googleusercontent.com/-zfF5rtsq4JA/TXhn7ZWjK6I/AAAAAAAAAX8/g9zMkGc2Q_w/s1600/venus-of-willendorf-back-view-.jpg
Overemphasized buttocks and breasts, as well as the belly area.Venus Callipyge
known as the "beautiful buttocks"
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_CallipygeFinally, we must also remember that explaining human procreational urges in biochemical and psychological terms makes sense only when we are talking about humans in their early stages of development. However, today's humans are less-governed by primal instincts, and we are more-able to override those urges because of the influence of social norms and practices. I'm sure most people will agree that we now place a greater emphasis on social and behavioural factors when seeking a mate, such as a person's character, their compatibility, their position in social hierarchy, etc. That's not to say that we completely overlook our ideas of physical beauty, but that it is no longer the sole determinant in procreational behaviour.
When seeking a mate, yes. Other factors play a huge role.
Allow me to rephrase what I had said.
I never meant as a means of searching a partner for marriage. What I meant was a sexual partner.
Mate was the wrong word. What I meant was "wanting to have sex"." makes sense only when we are talking about humans in their early stages of development"
I couldn't disagree more. No offence intended.
I believe all evolutionary biologists would disagree.
https//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biologyWomen want a men with, the aspects which I listed above.
Men want women with an attractive body.
Of course this doesn't apply to all individuals, but in general I believe it does.Peace. peace
-
" makes sense only when we are talking about humans in their early stages of development"
I couldn't disagree more. No offence intended.No offence taken.
In light of your rephrasing of what you had posted earlier, I find we are now more in agreement.
Perhaps I should also rephrase my statement from...
today's humans are less-governed by primal instincts.
to...
" today's humans are less expressive of primal instincts."
I do believe that there is a greater modulation of primal urges taking place in today's humans than there would have been in our earlier stages of development. That is to say, I believe that we still feel the same impulses as our earliest ancestors felt (whether relating to procreation, survival, fear, etc.), however, these impulses, in my view, are now more subject to intentional modulation on account of social conditioning.
-
salam
in my opinion, there is no theory of evolution and the Quran proves it (i already posted about it in another thread but ill post again, no issue in that i hope aye? lol)
recall this verse
Say, "Shall I inform you of worse than that as penalty from The God? those whom The God has cursed and with whom He became angry and made of them apes and pigs and slaves of taghut. Those are worse in position and further astray from the sound way." (ch 5, verse 60)
Note here The God tells us He made pigs and apes/monkeys from humans. We can clearly see it today as we know apes/monkeys are genetically similar to humans, and so are pigs/swine (please google it you will see that humans use pig parts as organ transplants and pigs have same thoracic and abdominal organs as humans, skin type, eye lashes and protruding nose, human molars, swine also depress, diseases infecting them infect humans too etc etc hence why pork is forbidden)
The God does not use any adjective to qualify what kind of apes He made from humans and also says He “made from them (humans He was angry with)” meaning the pigs and apes still exist
please note the following verses
And you had already known about those who transgressed among you concerning the sabbath, and We said to them "Be despicable apes." And We made it a deterrent punishment for those who were present and those who succeeded and a lesson for those who fear The God (ch 2, verses 65 and 66)
The God uses the adjective despicable and also says “Be” and not “made from them” and so the humans were turned to despicable apes and died off. these are what the scientists call the common human ape ancestor. and coincidentally all of the fossils were found in africa (and those to whom sabbath was decreed because they disputed in it were in africa - egypt )
everytime archeologists find fossils of an individual(s) scientists claim they found new species of ancestors. well if two people, example one measuring 1.74 cm and one 1.84 cm with different weights and bodies, were turned to despicable apes, wont they look and be different?
The God also says they are a deterrent punishment for succeeding generations as well. well we found the fossils and instead of thinking of them as punishment and fearing The God, people are fascinated by them use those fossils as a fake and erroneous explanation to human evolution. the devil indeed fooled many.
please take a look at the ape human common ancestors like lucy and think, arent they abject and weird apes? halfway between apes and humans
there is no evolution. recall aslo when The God tells us the example of jesus is like adam. jesus was created as jesus just as adam was created as asam by The God’s permission and will. theybwere not created as apes who became humans.
please question everything you are told in science books even regarding the earth and universe being billions of years. the only Book that contains the truth and is unquestionable is the Quran.
and frankly, isnt evolution ridiculous? if a fish went out of the sea, it would die, it wont develop lungs and all. it would die in seconds. evolution is even more far fetched than a fairy tale
(early humans like neanderthals are noah’s people. recall the verse where hud tells his people that The God made them successors after noah’s people and increased them in CREATION. The God said noah’s people are a sign, well we found their fossils/skeletons have we not? )
there is no theory of evolution that stands
by the way pleaze also google the fact that soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones
any comments are welcome please
peace
-
Salam,
Not sure I see the logic here.
According to fossilized remains, apes and pigs have been around for millions of years. So, to suddenly make them appear only a few thousand years ago in relation to the story of God degrading some humans to pigs & apes during the Sabaath has no basis.
I can see that God would make people He is angry with into an existing animal (especially ones that are deemed low), but that He would create a new species of animal totally unknown and make humans into that is pretty thin.
Also, while meat of pig is specifically forbidden, you have no such specific prohibition on apes.
-
It's clearly can be seen by merely physical observation that evolution also known as constant change throughout time happened in all aspect of the universe. Galaxy, Stars, Planets, All things inside the planet (rock formation, gases, fluid matter, carbon based lifeforms, human, human's language, human's thought processes, human's culture etc). Only the ignorant would not be able to see such clear observable signs.
Even on this thread alone, the thread starter "Student of Allah" has evolved into a different kind of personality, with different outlook on life and different set of opinion. Compared to the time when she started this thread.
-
salam
i did not say The God made apes and pigs from transgressors of sabbath.
i said He made apes and pigs from those He was angry withthose who transgressed against sabbath were told to “Be despicable apes” (what scientists believe to be ape human ancestor)
and layth, what does animal considered “low” mean? what is criteria for low?
i had asked myself about why apes not forbidden...maybe cause The God knows we will not eat them or maybe apes share in dna with bumans but oigs shre in actually body? only The God knows why
i believe in the Quran over “science”, and the Quran says The God made apes and pigs from those He was angry with (no mention of transgressors of sabbath here, please read the verses)
peace
-
salam
please google similarities between pigs and humans as well as similarities between pigs and apes
coincidence? evolution? i do not think so
also that pig organs are compatible with human organs a coincidence? i dont think so either
The God, in His infinite mercy, gave us a proof when He told us He made pigs and apes from humans. glory and thanks to The God
here are some website
https//www.science.org.au/curious/people-medicine/similarities-between-humans-and-pigs
https//farmsnotfactories.org/articles/5-ways-pigs-humans-alike/
https//pandasthumb.org/archives/2013/12/yes-you-share-a.html
https//www.google.ca/amp/s/www.mnn.com/earth-matters/animals/stories/amp/pigs-and-humans-more-closely-related-thought-according-genetic-analysis
pig flesh is forbidden as they are made from humans
Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path." (ch 5, verse 60) btw its a translation from monotheist group
in arabic ja3ala minhom(o?) and not ja3alahom
which i understand to be “made from them” and not “made them into” or “turned them into”that is my understanding
peace
-
pig flesh is forbidden as they are made from humans
Say "Shall I inform you of worse than this as a punishment from God Those whom God cursed and became angry at them, and He made from them apes and pigs and servants of evil. Those have a worst place and are more astray from the right path." (ch 5, verse 60) btw its a translation from monotheist group )
in arabic ja3ala minhom(o?) and not ja3alahom
which i understand to be “made from them” and not “made them into” or “turned them into”that is my understanding
peace
peace, read in context about behavior… 560 humans serve false idols/deities
humans approached speaking
561 واذا wa-idha/and when of (time adverb present/future) جاوكم they come to you قالوا said they ofواذ wa-idh/and when i.e. written without the trailing alif denotes time adverb refers to past episode
acting like aggressive monkeys
562 وترى and thou see كثىرا much منهم minhum/of them ىسرعون hastening فى in الاثم the detriment والعدون and the transgressionbehaving as swine devouring foul etc.
562 واكلهم and consumption theirs السحت the illicitBerlin, State Library ms.or.fol. 4313
606-652, CE (95.4%) - parchment
https//corpuscoranicum.de/handschriften/index/sure/5/vers/60/handschrift/15https//i.postimg.cc/CMHvHpp0/ch5v59-67.jpg
638 وما and not من of دابه creature فى in الارض the land ولا and not طىر flyer ىطىر flyed بجنحىه with wings two its الا except امم communities امثلكم similitude's you ما not فرطنا neglect we of فى in الكتب the book من of شى thing ثم furthermore الى to ربهم lord theirs ىحشرون gathered being
-
salam
you are assuming that (ch5, v61) is speaking about those turned to apes and swine. for me its clear that verse and what follows is speaking about disbelievers.
also, (ch5, v6) also say “and when they come to you” not “and when these come to you” so for me “they” means the unbelievers in general
in (ch5, v60) The God says He made apes and swine from those He was angry with. why start intepreting? it is as The God tells us.
i have a question, why do people assume swine (and apes) are “low” animals? what is your criteria for them being “low”?? what does it even mean “low”? is a fly “low” and an eagle “high”? is a donkey “low” and a hippo “high”?
and why would pork be forbidden if not that they were made from humans as mentioned clearly?and by the way, coincidence apes and swine are extremely like humans (physically and psychologically)??
every word in the Quran is measured. it is from The God.
whilst in ch5, v60 we are told swine and apes are made from humans, in ch2, v65 we are told The God told sabbath transgressors “be despicable apes”. not that He made from them despicable apes, but (transformed) “be despicable apes”. so they were turnd to despicable apes (what scientists think is the common human ape ancestor) and died off.peace
