Theory of Evolution anyone ?

[Armanaziz]

Salam brother.

If God doesn't exist science tells us how things work. If God does exist science tells us how God makes things work, there is no need to to separate God from the equation if you believe He exists.

What I mean by keeping "will of God" out of the equation - is refraining from explicitly mentioning "will of God" in science discourse - I am not meaning forgetting God. God IS always part of the "real" equation - but for the purpose of science we choose to keep this implicit. Since you are refuting a point which I am not making I have to understand I have still not been able to communicate my argument about "materialistic perspective" clearly enough - but unfortunately, I have reached the limit of my expression ability and time so I would just leave it there. Just be honest and ask yourself In study of climatology or astronomy - do we deliberately keep the words "by will of God / by law of God" implicit or not? If you find an honest answer to that you should understand what I am saying.

In fact if a theory has God physically /mechanically involved in arranging DNA strands to create a life from ? I would absolutely protest that because that would portray God as a ?heavenly being? limited in time and space.

How so? this seems to contradict your earlier statement "God personally sustains the entire concept we call ?existence? and everything that happens on earth. Starting from each movement of atom to each supernova happens per God?s will."

The key words are the ones highlighted in red - "physically /mechanically involved". I believe God sustains us somewhat like we sustain our imagination - He is way above physically /mechanically getting involved in this creation. This is the same reason why the whole concept of "Son of God" is absurd. Whatever God wills He just wants it to be and it is - this is true for the creation of Jesus, just as much it is true for creation of Adam - Allah is far above of getting physically /mechanically involved to get anything done.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,

Arman

[huruf]

I know that Armanaziz has said that when he says evolution he refers to darwinian evolution, but since he seems to be setting against the introduction of the intervention" of God, for the sake of clarity I insist that reducing evolution to "darwinian" evolution is a falsification of facts. There is no such a choice as between darwinian avolution and no evolution. This is open field, there are many possible types of evolution. The question is completely open.

Salaam

[Armanaziz]

Salamun Alaikum.

I know that Armanaziz has said that when he says evolution he refers to darwinian evolution, but since he seems to be setting against the introduction of the intervention" of God, for the sake of clarity I insist that reducing evolution to "darwinian" evolution is a falsification of facts. There is no such a choice as between darwinian avolution and no evolution. This is open field, there are many possible types of evolution. The question is completely open.

Salaam

This is the area where I am open to learn as well. I am really not knowledgeable about "many possible types of evolution". So if there is any material on this - and any perspective on why a particular type of evolution theory is better fitting with Qur'an I am eager to learn that.

However if the only value addition of the modified theory is that it puts the words "by will of God" in the conventional evolution theory - then don't bother. I agree to such addition, but I already explained why keeping that part implicit is acceptable for me.

May Allah guide us all to the straigh route.

Regards,
Arman

[huruf]

I think I made it clear that I refer strictly to the scientific world in the language of the scientific world and for me the there is no such thing as a division of science between God and no God, but between good science and sloppy science.

Darwinian evolution, from hte begining has been a loppy science because the result to be reached always came first, not what honestly could be ascertained. That of course giving due place to the fact that in researche there is always a certain degree of conjecture, sufficient to push forward the research, but not to condition it to the preconceived resuelt one wants.

We have seen that kindof conjecture in the forums many times we ask ?What if? sometimes it comes to something useful or revealing, many times it does not, but it is bad when from the start we assert it must be so no matter what is uncovered. I have learnt a lot that way, and I think many of us have. Of course, since this is a field not subject to experimentation and only to observation, we may not agree on many things, but that is logical since in human sciences the variation is infinite and many things may be true to a certain extent but not absolutely and we are never absolutely objective, although we can become more and more objective. that is purify ourselves as to our motives and honesty.

Salaam

[virtueorvice]

The problem with your approach is that you are viewing evolution as a theory, when in truth it is nothing but an ideology that is full of holes, propagated purely for political reasons.

I would like you to take a look at the following simple sentence from the Quran, if you truly believe it to be the word of Divinity, and tell me, without beating around the bush, without resorting to acrobatics or manipulation, what it means to you

{And Allah made you grow from the earth as plants}...

Salam,

Dr. Shabbir Ahmed has translated the verse you quoted as 7117 And God has caused you to grow as a growth from the earth.

Muhammad Asad has also given a similar rendition.

Not everything that the theory of evolution says is correct neither it is addressing all the problems; nevertheless, everything has happened/is happening in measured stages and working according to divine laws.

Whatever has happened to "bashar" that turned him into "Insan" must be discovered and addressed through natural phenomena.

There are some theories and explanations that address the problem of "bashar" vs. "insan" in a good and rational manner. But I agree with you that the mainstream "theory of evolution" has become (by many atheists) an ideological tool and propaganda machine .

[Wakas]

peace uq, all,

With regard to mathematical possibility of evolution, I read a journal article which discussed this and suggested it was perfectly feasible. However, a response to that journal article, which also appeared in the journal, discredited much of it.

I have noted that evolutionists tend not to mention the mathematical practicalities/assumptions of their theory, which I have always found disappointing. I'm no expert in biology nor mathematics so I'm not sure what's possible.

[Taro_Hiroshi]

Peace Wakas, all,

Thanks for sharing the findings about the mathematical possibility of evolution. The journal which discussed this and the response to this journal seems interesting. Can you share a link to these articles with with us?

When it comes to my thoughts about the theory of evolution, as far as I am concerned there are many good arguments both for and against this theory. Both those who support the theory of evolution and those who support the theory of intelligent design have good arguments, in my opinion. For example the author Richard Dawkins has some good arguments for evolution, in my opinion. And the author Richard Milton has some good arguments against evolution, in my opinion. Their books/videoes might be worth taking a look at.

There are also people who believe in both evolution and creation. For example the muslim author T.O. Shanavas seems to believe in both evolution and creation. His book "Islamic theory of evolution" might be worth taking a look at.

Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless.

Many people claim that it is import to read arguments both for and against evolution before making our mind up on the theory of evolution. I think it is important to question both the theory of evolution and the theory of intelligent design. It is not an intelligent decision to blindly accept evolution or blindly accept intelligent design.

A 300 million year old tooth has been found in Russian coal (see the link below). And Nasa images have found a 1.7 million year old man-made bridge (see the link below). If these findings are fantasy-based, then these findings are not a threat to the theory of evolution. But if these findings are factual/reality-based, then these findings suggests that our ape-like ancestors must have been very intelligent and must have been in possession of advanced technology.

http//www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/23/300-million-year-old-tooth-gear_n_2527424.html

http//www.industrytap.com/nasa-images-find-1-7-million-year-old-man-made-bridge/17310

Some people claim that either evolutionists are right and intelligent design supporters are wrong, or intelligent supporters are right and evolutionists are wrong. But this might be a false dichotomy. Because there is a possibility that there are more than two options (evolution or creation). There might be a third option as well.

It seems that most people are either for evolution and against intelligent design, or for intelligent design and against evolution. In the past I used to have a "for-or-against approach" towards the theory of evolution. But then I decided to change my approach and not take a stance regarding this theory until I have examined it more thoroughly. I have decided to not be for or against the theory of evolution until I have studied this theory very deeply and examined the best evidence from both evolutionists and intelligent design supporters. If some evolutionists or some intelligent design supporters consider me a heretic for taking this approach, then so be it. I am not responsible for their petty and useless emotions. I would rather be a critical thinking heretic than a blind following sheep.

Quran 3918 The ones who listen to what is being said, and then follow the best of it. These are the ones whom God has guided, and these are the ones who possess intelligence.

[Wakas]

peace Taro,

It was this article. I can't find the response I read, but there are a few responses, e.g. this one.

[BobaFett]

<b>Many christian creationists claim that the earth is only 6000 years old. But in reality there is no evidence that supports this claim. Since this claim has no basis in reality, I think this claim is worthless. </b>

While I don't know if there is or is not evidence supporting the 6,000 year belief, their is certainly strong evidence that the current methods used for dating the age of the Earth are very flawed.

I agree with what you say about evolution vs creation.

[BobaFett]

Selam bro.

<b>What I mean by keeping "will of God" out of the equation - is refraining from explicitly mentioning "will of God" in science discourse - I am not meaning forgetting God. God IS always part of the "real" equation - but for the purpose of science we choose to keep this implicit.</b>

I understand what you mean, I just disagree with it for a couple of reasons.

1. While this may be how you look at science, it is certainly not how the majority of modern scientists go about their business. God is not being kept implicit, and this is especially true in Darwinian evolution, God is being excluded.

2. I don't see how keeping God implicit serves science, I have asked you several times to enlighten me on this point.

<b>In study of climatology or astronomy - do we deliberately keep the words "by will of God / by law of God" implicit or not? If you find an honest answer to that you should understand what I am saying.</b>

I don't think you understand what modern science is mate.. The more accurate term is the "Natural sciences". It is the study of the natural world, what we can observe and measure, there is no room in it for the immaterial, the unobservable. Like I said before the will of God is not being kept implicit, it is being excluded. Every modern scientific theory attempts to explain our reality without resorting to the supernatural(God).

<b>The key words are the ones highlighted in red - "physically /mechanically involved". I believe God sustains us somewhat like we sustain our imagination - He is way above physically /mechanically getting involved in this creation.</b>

You are right, I misunderstood this since I took it for granted that we all agree God is immaterial. When you said physically/mechanically involved I thought you meant you didn't believe God was involved with the mechanics of creation. My apologies.

[Armanaziz]

Salamu Alaika Brother BobaFett.

Alhamdulillah. I am feeling our understandings have now almost perfectly aligned. I agree that many of the (not most) modern scientists not only keep "God's will" explicit - rather they exclude it or believe they have sufficient proof to exclude it. And yes I do agree this is a problem - they themselves are confused and even worse they are spreading this confusion among others. In my view they probably do these because they, too, are confused about the purpose and scope of "materialistic viewpoint". And to address this problem only attacking theory of evolution is not justified - rather we need to have dialogue with the scientists on what science really is and what it is not.

Furthermore - the scientists who exclude God are barely the "most" in number. Even Einstein is known for having faith in a supreme power/entity who controls the universe beyond the understanding and perception of humans. He categorically rejected being termed as Atheist. A survey of scientists who are members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in May and June 2009, finds that just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power. (Ref http//www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/). While this % is low compared to faith in general public in the US - it shows it is still premature to say scientists are unanimous in excluding "God". So, how do you think those scientists who do believe in God or a higher authority get along with their day to day business? I believe, like I explained before, they keep the issue of "God's will" implicit in their research - in other words they adopt a "materialistic viewpoint".

I am proposing that a clear understanding of this "materialistic viewpoint" will help us in 2 ways - 1) it will help us to scrutinize theories like evolution from a more objective view point - we will have clear understanding when we are answering the "How" question and when we are answering the "Why" question. and 2) it will help debunk the "myth" that accepting scientific argument and logic automatically renders a person atheist.

May Allah guide us to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

[huruf]

From the Qur'an we know that if God didn't exist nothing would exist the creation would cease to exist and that if God did not sustain his cretation it would cease to exist, nothing would exist. But God has made his creation with his sunna, his laws. It is a creation in which is imprinted God's "talents" his way of doing things. We are marked by our creator, we cannot behave, nothing can behave in non conformity with Gods imprinted laws. Law of selfpreservation, for instance.

Any evolution has to be according to God laws. We do not need to state everytime this is according to God's laws. Like I do not have to say everytime I talk to my mother in the presence of those who know her, this is my mother, because that is not the question. The question may be is what is this law or this mechanism that makes things happen this way and not another way? Evolution exists, that is, as far as I can judge, a certainty.

BUT what kind of evolution is it? how does it operate? Trhough randomness? As far as I can judge that is not nonsense, no that is nothing. It does not teach us anything or reveal anything. Randomness does nto exist as a cause of anything. Randomness is another way of saying "I do not know". When people do not know how something came to happen, they say hasard, randomness, destiny, whatever. That is their state of mind or their perplexity, but it does not explain anything. It is the same thing with "natural selection", before that called "survival of the fittest". It has been a cosmetic improvement of vocabulary. "The fittest" smacked of not very charitable consideration of the weakest. So the terms were made less "inocuous, but the fact is that again, natural selection, rests a lot on randomness, that is on ignorance. The fact that you name something instead of ignorance something else, does not make you less ignorant.

Darwinian evolution fell most soundly with the discovery of genetics by Mendel. It was subsequently rearranged to fit genetics in the equation, but is is still upholding something of mystical Choiceness so, so much akin to the "chosen" people concept. That is as if nature selected the surviving ones over the non surviving ones. That you say that "God who selects" or that it "nature selects", the blank is knowledge is the same but you introduce a "moral" or existential principle of things that exist beause they have been chosen by... Call it whatever, you are already setting ategories of things, of people by way of attributing to them the merits of having been chosen. That science is rotten science, sloppy rotten science that rests on the root idea of some being discarded of higher authority and others being chosen of higher authority, and of course that whole concept managed by the gurus of "selection".

Science is inert, it is not a being, it is a concept, and that concept is never independent of the basic mentality that takes hold of it. And when the basic mentality is the one basec on the survival of the fittest (the most powerful) it is lasted and cannot be very objective.

A scientist as anybody who undertakes a labour in which he or she will put all their strengths and endeavours, must purify her or himself. Thy cannot go into it burdened by all the preconceptions, prejudices, and "battles". Scientifical battles are nto nbattles of science but of things straneous to it.

Of course, for as long as we are human we will not be 100% but we should strive for it. If from the start we are already committed to an idea or an ideollogy and connot make it an outside element while we are engaged inside the scientific question, then no good science will come of it.

Darwin is in everybody's mouth. Mendel who did a real discovery far worthier than Darwin's (who as far as I know did not discover anything that wasn't discovered before him) is not mentionned even one tenth of the times Darwin's is mentionned. Why is that? Of course no injustice to Mendel, those who know know who he is and it is sure he didn't discover anything seeking glory or popularity, but it does show where we are concenring science and how we make of it a battleground, where it should be an exsercise in humility and perseverance. Of course with big monies in the strife, things are likely to worsen and not to improve.

Salaam

[Man_of_Faith]

Peace,

I think no intelligent person would reject the notion that there is a creator to all this. Einsten was a person who delved into his own mind quite much and philosophized upon things.

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.

They may know about academic and sophisticated methods, but what makes one truly intelligent is the ability to think "outside the box". If you use the brain only to store what others indoctrinate you to know of knowledge then it will avail you nothing in terms of intelligence.

I 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.

But on a bottom line; I cannot speak more for Einstein because I did not know him or what went on in his mind and the judgment rests with God. If he had faith in the creator entity and kept himself from bad deeds he may have stood a chance.

Have faith

[Jafar]

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 116

I 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. Einstein

Definitely 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. Einstein

Yet 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. Einstein

And 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. Einstein

And 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. Einstein

In 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. Einstein

I 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

[Man_of_Faith]

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

[Taro_Hiroshi]

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.

[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"

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

[Taro_Hiroshi]

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."

[Sanjan_Ali_Hazarika]

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.

[Student_of_Allah]

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 mya

Similar.
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