The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions
-
Whether I am a muslim or not is irrelevant in this discussion. And no, a cat won't 'evolve' into a dog because the cat doesn't need to, it's usually in perfect equilibrium with its environment. But this is the point I was trying to draw - variation isn't the word to describe speciation. Especially not in its scientific context.
Khi- Can u plz define speciation 4 me?
Going back to 'intelligent design' (which is a nickname for creationism, so I'm going to be using that from now on) - proclaiming the 'DNA' as an amazing structure and saying it's an ode to intelligent design is inaccurate. This kind of reasoning is called inductive reasoning, and it starts with a presumption. The logical line of thinking behind such reasoning is 'well, I believe in God, so let's see how I can get this piece of evidence to fit in with my idea of God'. Well, this is not a scientific process, this is a religious process. So please stop trying to claim intelligent design as a subdivision of science.
Khi- So evolution is the same. U find a bunch of bones in the dirt then arrange them according 2 ur preconceived idea of evolution. Both r religious but the idea of a Desgner makes much more sense.
You have no point. Your reasons for not including fossils as evidence are
- Fossils are dead (no, really?!)
- They don't have a time-stamp (actually Einstein, yes, yes they do)
- No court would ever accept them (because it is the justice system that decides the progress of science)
So as you can see, your evidence is largely based on your fallacious understanding of evolution, and are in reality not so much as evidence as it is childish bantering. I'm not 'red hot', I'm just flabbergasted at your lack of knowledge and persistence, that's all.
Khi- More gobbledygook. I hear such stetements from evolutionists every time.
- Microsoft isn't a software, it's a software company. Get your facts and examples right, especially if you want to prove me wrong with them
- There's no such thing as 'random mutations' in the realm of computers, because computers are deterministic-machines.
Khi- Sorry forgot the 's i.e. microsoft's. Is the DNA not a deterministic "machine". The codes there r fixed by the Designer.
No, it doesn't. There's no objective measure of what 'complexity' is, therefore it does not pertain to a design, or anything really. Saying something is 'complex' and therefore must be designed is like saying 'it's black, so it must have come from africa'. There's really no relation.
Khi- Ok so tht means watches, pyramids, etc all evolved too. If evolution were true we wld have found such simple things evolving 1st. The cells structure indicates design just like looking at a watch or a painting wld make any of us conclude tht it had a designer.
Evolution does not deal with the creation of DNA, it deals with its progression. Case closed.
Khi- But the DNAs of different animals r designed differently. Thts the whole pt. Therefore an ape cannot evolve into a human by random chance mutations. Case Closed! GOD Bless!
-
SaLaM bmbmm and idmkhizar
Here is one How is the genome get reprogrammed through evolution?
Since im no scientist, i will assume that this depends on the surrounding of the species. For example, giraffs have longer necks becoz their source of food came from high branches. Hence over time ( probably 100s of years ), their genes reprogrammed themselves to give the species a longer neck.
Another example would be, and correct me if im wrong, is that people living in africa, not all maybe, have a higher resistance to the UV light.
-
Hi Jaxal,
Good speculation. Actually adaptation is mostly true, when particular set of genes are activated and transcribed to produce an RNA and hence a change, but the DNA does not change. It is impossible to reprogramme DNA, undernormal conditions, and if it do occur it leads to diseases, hence evolution is rejected.
Peace
-
Dear Jaxal,
If you take 20 different amino acids, 100 each. Put them is a basket (if its possible) and see whether you will come up with a correct protein sequence. Its funny that the Evolutionist are not just saying this, what they are suggesting that the DNA (which codes for this protein) is to be reprogrammed (although they can't say this...because it will be a joke!).
The complexity of the DNA is so huge that if everyone try to create a fly they will not be able to...and what is evolution? what can evolution do? Allah created everything and given everything its nature. One should understand whats the real motive(s) behind the evolution theory. -
Not always the case, but some mutations giving rise to a functional protein is 1100000000000000000000000000000 chance
Mutation giving you new functional extra nose on your face - it does not work that way. Mutative changes are very small and their effects are accumulative over thousands if not millions of years...
Regards,
-
SaLaM bmbmm
but i can assure you that its not from evolution.
I beg to differ. I think it has everything to do with evolution. From a lion to a cat. De-evolution looooooolll no just kidding. But seriously, its not like the lion woke up one day and found it has shurnk in size. Or the other way round.
-
Salam,
I was just kidding, giving the nose example...Mutations can be millions of years, but will they change a fish to a lizard?The evidence that we have is the fossil records and the comparison of DNA sequences between species...
Regards,
-
Hi LotTree,
I think fossil records does not mean anything as far as evolution is concerned. We have to deal evolution at the molecular level. There is resemblence in the DNA seqience within various species, because they are part of the system, such as there is resemblence between various planets etc.
If you can show me an example or condition under which the genomic DNA is changed for the benefit of a particular species than I will acknowledge evolution. Just give me one example.
Please
-
Hello bmbmm,
I think fossil records does not mean anything as far as evolution is concerned.
How do you explain the fossil record then?
We have to deal evolution at the molecular level.
Yes, this the contention of the book "Darwin's Black Box" by the Biochemist Micheal Behe. He brings in the concept of "irreducible complexity" and in that he has a good case. He gives an convincing argument of this "irreducible complexity" using the Bacterial flagellum.
But this argument has been undermined recently by Richard Dawkins and others. But even Dr. Behe who is the leading intellectual of the Creationist movement in America, admits that all life share a common ancestor including common ancestory of apes and humans and accepts all the evidence for macroevolution of species.But explanation of evolution at the biomolecular level is the next challenge. We will just have to wait and see how the knowledge develops in that area and what answers we get from it. It is still early days yet.
First hurdle to overcome perhaps is to account for the "abiogenesis" on Earth. There are two competing theories that might explain it, the RNA World Hypothesis and the Crystal Theory. If any of these can explain the evolution of the DNA then we can confirm evolution in the lab until then we have only fossil records and DNA analysis to make a tenative conclusion.There is resemblence in the DNA seqience within various species, because they are part of the system,
Yes, all life seem to share a common ancestory - this is the undeniable fact perhaps from modern DNA analysis.
If you can show me an example or condition under which the genomic DNA is changed for the benefit of a particular species than I will acknowledge evolution. Just give me one example.
I think Andya will able to give example perhaps because he works in this field...so Andya if can...thanks...
Regards,
-
Dear LoteTree,
When we see things around us we do see a resemblance. Its either suggest a common ancestor or not. But why a common ancestor? why no many ancestors? The truth is things do not change, things do adapt to their surroundings, according to adaptation i.e. certain class of genes are activated and others are silenced. This however has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution suggest a change in the genetic level, which even the evolutionist will not agree, yet still claiming that it takes millions of years.
-
Hello bmbmm,
But why a common ancestor? why no many ancestors?
The DNA analysis suggests common ancestory...
The truth is things do not change, things do adapt to their surroundings,
according to adaptation i.e. certain class of genes are activated and others are silenced.Yes this is the case. Adaptation is part of evolution. When you say certain genes are activated and others silenced in the past - yes that is so...but in our in earth's past DNA itself must have been built from smaller molecules? The whole DNA molecule coming to existence by random chance is impossible - scientist acknowledge that.
This however has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution suggest a change in the genetic level, which even the evolutionist will not agree, yet still claiming that it takes millions of years.
There are indeed changes in the genetic level, mutations is one example, there are gene transfers, co-option etc...there is a whole host of mechanism which explains the development of the complexity of the DNA molecule and this all boils down to the fact that the DNA copy process is not pefect. There are always errors in the copy process. And when DNA are analysised these errors can be seen in living animals too in shared ancestory.
Regards,