Theory of Evolution anyone ?
-
Peace All.
We did not come from"apes",nor did apes come from humans.
Define ape..
And define human.." Be ye as despicable as apes is just an expression in Qoran meaning "lowest of the low".
You're mistaken, 'ape' in that verse is a symbolism of "GREED" as 'monkey' is a symbol of Greed in Israelites culture (and donkey is a symbol of "Steadfast/Patience" within Israeli culture)
and not 'lowest of the low'..GOD created each species as its own.
Please define "As its own"..
Why aren't apes still changing?
Gorilla, Chimps, Orangutan, Human is still changing as we speak..
Darwinian evolution has been proven to be flawed, but has been used in the past to justify our imperialistic subjugation of non-Europeans, relieving us of our guilt to enslave, annihilate, and exploit the subhuman races since we are superior by natural selection and the fittest to survive.
"Survival of the fittest" is true and it has nothing to do with 'imperlalistic subjugation' of Europeans to non-Europeans or Muslim to non-Muslim or Christian to non-Christian.
The word "FIT" for human context, means "NICE", "Survival of the NICEST".
And even the Quran told stories of "People around you which WE HAVE DESTROYED" and asked its readers to contemplate on it.Let's take a look at current world population as empirical evidence.
Sum up the total population of ALL European Countries.
Sum up the total population of ALL Middle Eastern Countries.Compare each of the above with the total population of China and then India.
Each of those two countries eclipsed the total population of ALL European countries and ALL Middle Eastern Countries.
And then contemplate, whether they have subjugate / colonize / enslave anyone, in comparison to European and Middle Easterners.The number speaks for itself, the survival of the NICEST.
Those who are not NICE will become extinct / destroyed.
That's indeed among God's universal law.
Human will evolve to become more nicer... as those who are not nice will be cut off from the evolution tree and become extinct..Salam / Peace
-
I would like for folks to read the article about Ota Benga in my previous post, the article speaks for itself.
Salam,
The article you mentioned is a report of man's ignorance, hatred and racism and has nothing to do with evolution.
The article concludes at the end that, "The story of Ota Benga is one of the many tragic fruits of evolutionism. But it is one which contains a lesson in helping us to realize the importance of the Christian teaching that all men are brothers, all descendants of Adam and Eve. If all Christians had stood up for creation at the outset of the Ota Benga incident, this horror story of evolutionary racism might have been averted."
Evolution is a scientific fact and is revealed in the Qur'an. It were Muslim scientist that first studied EVOLUTION long before Darwin.
225 O Mankind! If you are in doubt that humanity will one day stand on its feet, and that you will be resurrected back to life after death, consider the process of your own evolution. We have created you in stages From dust, then from male and female gametes, then from a zygote, then from an embryo, shapely and first shapeless. We thus clearly explain things for you. The embryo and then the fetus stay in the womb until an appointed term according to Our laws. Then We bring you forth as infants and carry you to maturity. While some of you die young, others live to the feeblest old age so that they know nothing after knowing much. (Resurgence of humanity can take place just as) you, O Prophet, see a dry barren land, but when We send down water on it, it vibrates with life and grows all kinds of beautiful plants.
543 They adamantly deny the truth and follow their desires. Yet, everything moves to its destination in stages.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Of course I believe in evolution within each species. Gradual change to adapt as life progresses.
That is different from one species becoming another.
If you are saying one species has become another, then bring us proof, or show us an intermediate species?
Peace Jafar
Definition of a human You are a human.
If you are an "ape" and I am conversing with you, then I am wrong!
Definition of " its own" One species does not change to another! Example,a dog does not become a sheep?
Peace to you both.
-
If you are saying one species has become another, then bring us proof, or show us an intermediate species?
Salam,
Evidence is all around us! On earth and in the visible universe. There are many scientists dedicating their time and energy to studying evolution!
Should we really think that God has placed more than 8.7 million species separately on Earth? Please see Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million http//www.nature.com/news/2011/110823/full/news.2011.498.html
Should we believe that God has placed so many stars individually in the sky or should we believe that they have evolved from previous generation of stars and gas/dust clouds?
We have evidence that the Universe came into existence from a small point we cannot yet fully understand. Then it automatically evolved according to the Natural Laws.
Do you want to believe in the LORD of the Bible or Allah of the Qur'an?
Allah of the Qur'an is so Sublime and Intelligent that works through subtle ways and only SCIENTIST can truly understand those ways.
3528 And of human beings, the crawling creatures and related animals, and the cattle have diverse colors and properties. This is why of all His servants only those with knowledge of sciences can get some idea of the glory of God (by examining the wonders in nature). Surely, God is Almighty, Absolver of imperfections.
Creation of species on earth is no more different than the creation of the Universe. It all happens in stages driven from previous stages.
7927 What! Are you the more difficult to create or is the heaven that He built?
Homo Sapiens have evolved, along with some other groups that are extinct now, from previous less developed species.
Homo Sapiens and Chimpanzees have 99% of their genes the same.
Humans and Chimpanzees have had a common ancestor long time ago.
All species evolved on earth from some simple, less intelligent and less developed form of life.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Evolution is a GOD guided process.
My understanding and yours may not be as far as you think.The water that condensed at the early stages of the development of the earth and formed the seas oceans mixed with the dirt to form mud. Out of the molding mud was born the simplest living organisms in the shape of bacteria and single cell organisms. From this common origin of both plants and animals was developed two types of microscopic organisms. The first type gave birth to all plants while the second type developed into animals. The first of these primitive organisms is thought to have come to exist around 2.7 billion years ago. All these organisms originated from water then gradually developed into more complex living creatures that moved to land. This fact is also started in the Quran
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
It is indeed interesting, and along the same lines, to note that it was found that all liquid in our bodies ( blood, saliva, tears, sweat?.etc ) contain the same percentage of salt as is found in the oceans.
From the early organisms that moved to land developed the first reptiles around 200 million years ago. The first birds flew around 130 million years ago and the first man, Homo Habilis, walked on earth one million years ago. The first Homo Sapiens, who are thought of as our direct ancestors, walked on earth a mere 15, 000 years ago.
Today, when human tissue is analysed, it is found to contain exactly the same eighteen most abundant elements in the earth's crust. These are
Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminium, Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Hydrogen, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Phosphorous, Lead, Copper, Silver, Carbon and Zinc.
The Quran very accurately instates that fact with the following words
We created the human being from a certain kind of mud.
The fact that we are created from clay is indeed mentioned in the Scripture preceding the Quran, however, it is the word 'sulalah' which literally means (an active representative sample) that includes the biological fact that coincides with modern knowledge.However it was all programmed to come as different species by the Intelligent designer.Through DNA codes. Just the same as you come from one single cell,then develop into a grown human with different organs of different functions.
Praise be to GOD the creator of everything.
GOD bless.
Peace to you.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Evolution is a GOD guided process.
My understanding and yours may not be as far as you think.The water that condensed at the early stages of the development of the earth and formed the seas oceans mixed with the dirt to form mud. Out of the molding mud was born the simplest living organisms in the shape of bacteria and single cell organisms. From this common origin of both plants and animals was developed two types of microscopic organisms. The first type gave birth to all plants while the second type developed into animals. The first of these primitive organisms is thought to have come to exist around 2.7 billion years ago. All these organisms originated from water then gradually developed into more complex living creatures that moved to land. This fact is also started in the Quran
Do the unbelievers not realize that the heaven and the earth used to be one solid mass that we exploded into existence? And from water we made all living things. Would they believe?
It is indeed interesting, and along the same lines, to note that it was found that all liquid in our bodies ( blood, saliva, tears, sweat?.etc ) contain the same percentage of salt as is found in the oceans.
From the early organisms that moved to land developed the first reptiles around 200 million years ago. The first birds flew around 130 million years ago and the first man, Homo Habilis, walked on earth one million years ago. The first Homo Sapiens, who are thought of as our direct ancestors, walked on earth a mere 15, 000 years ago.
Today, when human tissue is analysed, it is found to contain exactly the same eighteen most abundant elements in the earth's crust. These are
Oxygen, Silicon, Aluminium, Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, Hydrogen, Chlorine, Iodine, Manganese, Phosphorous, Lead, Copper, Silver, Carbon and Zinc.
The Quran very accurately instates that fact with the following words
We created the human being from a certain kind of mud.
The fact that we are created from clay is indeed mentioned in the Scripture preceding the Quran, however, it is the word 'sulalah' which literally means (an active representative sample) that includes the biological fact that coincides with modern knowledge.However it was all programmed to come as different species by the Intelligent designer.Through DNA codes. Just the same as you come from one single cell,then develop into a grown human with different organs of different functions.
Praise be to GOD the creator of everything.
GOD bless.
Peace to you.
I wrongly thought that you think God has placed each species directly from the heavens upon the earth. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
-
Peace Virtueorvice.
Of course I believe in evolution within each species. Gradual change to adapt as life progresses.
That is different from one species becoming another.
If you are saying one species has become another, then bring us proof, or show us an intermediate species?
Peace Jafar
Definition of a human You are a human.
If you are an "ape" and I am conversing with you, then I am wrong!
Definition of " its own" One species does not change to another! Example,a dog does not become a sheep?
Peace to you both.
On species WHAT IS A SPECIES?
Everything gradually change overtime, yes it's everything, including the planet the star, the galaxies, the carbon and non-carbon based being that live in the planet etc..
For the carbon and celluloid based being that live in the planet, they invented a category called "Species".
One "Species" does and can evolve into multitude of "Species".
The exact definition of "WHAT IS A SPECIES" is a hot debate at the moment.The example of "Dog become a sheep" is irrelevant, it is like saying "Muhammad Ali become Michael Jackson".
BUT.. A species within dinosaur family does evolve to become birds of today.The question should be "Who is the common ancestor of Dog and Sheep?"
This is as relevant as "Who is the common ancestor of Muhammad Ali and Michael Jackson?"ON DEFINITION OF HUMAN.
Be more clear and concise on the matter, if it's merely ability to communicate, then see this, Gorilla can communicate with Human through sign language.http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=GorgFtCqPEs
Does that makes human and gorilla as "ONE SPECIES"?
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar.
Thank you for your comments.
Please read post 104. You may or may not agree.
In short Evolution is a GOD guided process.
GOD bless you.
Peace.
-
In short Evolution is a GOD guided process.
GOD bless you.OF COURSE IT IS, AS ALL ASPECT OF LIFE! (not only evolution)
Your hair will not fall if it's not in accordance to the Will of "Master of All Universes".
In scientific lingo God is known by the word Nature.
Law Of Nature, Nature Dictate Evolution etc... which is actually one of the same thing..The root cause of all of this 'rejection' of "Evolution" from specific group of people is not on the "Evolution" itself.
But more due to the Assyrian/Babylonian originated Myth of ADAM and EVE in EDEN, as told in the book of Genesis which they 100% believe as all fact!
And the myth do not fit to the way evolution works.. -
Peace, Jafar.
In scientific lingo God is known by the word Nature.
Law Of Nature, Nature Dictate Evolution etc... which is actually one of the same thing..I just got a chance to check out this thread, and I have a view similar to the idea that you convey in your post ALLAH (God) is synonymous with Nature, the Universe, energy, etc. Many people tend to disagree with this notion, however, because they perceive God as being personal. The Qur'aan appears to support the idea of ALLAH being a personal god as well, due to him communicating with people; sending prophets and messengers; sitting on a throne (whether this is a literal or symbolic 'throne' carrying out forms of justice; authoring books; being described as "merciful", "knowing", "wise", etc.
Do you believe that the Biblical and Qur'aanic depictions of God are correct? Do you believe that God is personal, in the sense that the Universe is interactive in our affairs (e.g. such as the notion proposed with the "law of attraction" concept)?
The root cause of all of this 'rejection' of "Evolution" from specific group of people is not on the "Evolution" itself.
But more due to the Assyrian/Babylonian originated Myth of ADAM and EVE in EDEN, as told in the book of Genesis which they 100% believe as all fact!
And the myth do not fit to the way evolution works..I agree with you on this point, at least for the most part... I think there are some people who reject the concept of evolution, via natural selection, because they don't want to be linked and compared to "mere animals". Humans are naturally egotistical, and they tend to hold themselves 'above' every other species and aspect of existence. Therefore, when scientists propose the idea that we are all apes, some people become offended.
Also, some people look at the complexity of life, and they determine that humans (and even some animals) are far too complex to have stemmed from a single-celled organism. These people often don't understand how evolution works, and they tend to make references to the implausibility of "an ape giving birth to a human" - which actually isn't how the evolutionary process works at all.
Again, many of them reject it because they don't understand it. I do believe that many (if not most) of the people who reject the notion of evolution do so due to the Biblical "Adam and Eve" story. However, this isn't the reason all of them reject it, and I think the root problem ultimately stems from the egotistical nature of humans, who refuse to be "lowered" to the level of animals, rather than the mythological Biblical story.
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace, Jafar.
I just got a chance to check out this thread, and I have a view similar to the idea that you convey in your post ALLAH (God) is synonymous with Nature, the Universe, energy, etc. Many people tend to disagree with this notion, however, because they perceive God as being personal. The Qur'aan appears to support the idea of ALLAH being a personal god as well, due to him communicating with people; sending prophets and messengers; sitting on a throne (whether this is a literal or symbolic 'throne' carrying out forms of justice; authoring books; being described as "merciful", "knowing", "wise", etc.
Do you believe that the Biblical and Qur'aanic depictions of God are correct? Do you believe that God is personal, in the sense that the Universe is interactive in our affairs (e.g. such as the notion proposed with the "law of attraction" concept)?
First, we need to trace the background on how this mindset of "personality" and it's opposite "non-personality" came into existence within human mindset.
Human is an arrogant species, they think high of themselves and they always think that they are above 'others'.
They only see others of their own kind as "personal" and deserve 'their respect', well as matter of fact some of them used to think that some of their own species are not "personal" and enslaved them.
In absolute reality "personal" and "non-personal" do not exist, it only exist within human arrogant mindset.
Thus the question of whether God is "personal" or "non-personal" can be answered with God is BOTH and MORE...
I agree with you on this point, at least for the most part... I think there are some people who reject the concept of evolution, via natural selection, because they don't want to be linked and compared to "mere animals". Humans are naturally egotistical, and they tend to hold themselves 'above' every other species and aspect of existence. Therefore, when scientists propose the idea that we are all apes, some people become offended.
Well said,
In absolute reality, human are animals, human are mammals and human are primates.Also, some people look at the complexity of life, and they determine that humans (and even some animals) are far too complex to have stemmed from a single-celled organism. These people often don't understand how evolution works, and they tend to make references to the implausibility of "an ape giving birth to a human" - which actually isn't how the evolutionary process works at all.
Again, many of them reject it because they don't understand it. I do believe that many (if not most) of the people who reject the notion of evolution do so due to the Biblical "Adam and Eve" story. However, this isn't the reason all of them reject it, and I think the root problem ultimately stems from the egotistical nature of humans, who refuse to be "lowered" to the level of animals, rather than the mythological Biblical story.
Evolution happened to everything in this universe.
And a species called human makes up very very very tiny winy small part of it...
Whether they reject or accept such fact is irrelevant.. as irrelevant as their presence on this universe.Salam / Peace
-
I don't think Evolution theory should be labeled a theory.. how do we falsify it? It is still a hypothesis.
Ignoring that, Darwinian evolution is not possible.
It breaks two laws of science.
-
The law of Biogenesis - Life comes from life. The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous. Do you guys know how complex even the simplest unicellular organism is? Natural processes cannot accomplish this. This is why all these multiverse theories are popping up, even with the vastness of our universe it is extremely unlikely for life to come about in this manner, so now they say "well there could be an infinite amount of universes and our universe is one of the few(perhaps only) with life."
-
The 2nd law of thermodynamics - You can't get order from disorder only greater disorder.
Then you have the chirality problem, orphan genes.. the list goes on.
This article is very informative and relatively easy to understand
http//www.newgeology.us/presentation32.htmlAnd here's one highlighting just how flaky the "theory" is given evidence from the Cambrian explosion.
http//www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/more_problems_w059921.htmlI guess divinely guided evolution is possible but I don't see the evidence for it.
-
-
The law of Biogenesis - Life comes from life. The idea that life came from some "primordial soup" is ridiculous.
Salamun Alaikum Brother.
The so called "ridiculous" idea appears to be also supported by the Qur'an statements like every creature was created from water (2445) or humans were created from clay (2312).
The idea that Qur'an supports the theory of evolution is supported widely even in some cases by traditionalists. For example you may check the site below
http//www.aljazeerah.info/Islamic%20Editorials/2007/October/Creation%20and%20Evolution%20in%20the%20Holy%20Qur'an%20By%20Hassan%20El-Najjar.htm
Best regards,
Arman -
Peace,
There is noting ridiculous about that. Of course God had to make a trap for those who do not have faith so that they believe in natural evolution through natural selection. There is still logical fallacies to why everything could just seem to know how to assemble. God is required no matter how you twist and turn it.
And evolution is true and science proves it too so we cannot deny the phenomenon. It just renders God even more amazing when reflecting upon nature, evolution and the universe.
God bless you
-
There is noting ridiculous about that. Of course God had to make a trap for those who do not have faith so that they believe in natural evolution through natural selection.
Natural selection or God's selection it doesn't matter as the selection was, is and will happen.
For human, herewith the 'law', the 'criteria' to be selected.
"Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth."
-- Matt 55Meek = lowly, loving, humble, gentle, peaceful.
The opposite those who are proud, harsh, hating, warmonger, oppressor shall become extinct and shall not inherit the earth.
Salam / Peace
-
Peace Jafar,
Your response was not exactly what I was thinking of. I meant that the illusion of a natural evolution is a trap for the people or God could have made so it is obvious that it was all already evolved at a breaking point in history. But it was not.
God bless you
-
Salamun Alaika Brother MoF.
Not Sure what you mean by trap... it is not clear from your response whether you believe in the evolution process or not.
What we observe in the natural word - the evidences from fossil records and DNA records of verious species is the manifestation of the truth (not a trap). Natural world does not lie - falshood is creation of men. I do not believe Allah is playing a game of cat and mouse with us.
The truth is from your Master - so do not be among the doubters.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Peace,
I give up here because I seem not to have been able to convey the meaning twice.
-
<b>Salamun Alaikum Brother.
The so called "ridiculous" idea appears to be also supported by the Qur'an statements like every creature was created from water (2445) or humans were created from clay (2312).</b>
Selam brother.
Like I said above(in less words), if you are suggesting that God evolved things by directly making them evolve in stages that He decides are best then I cannot argue against this, God is all powerful and can do anything. If He decided this is the best path for His creation then there is no reason He could not do it in this way.
But this is what the thread starter asked
<b>I would like to know my the point of view of the members of this site on the subject of Evolution.
By Evolution I mean , Darwinian evolution, evolution by natural selection.</b>
I only read the first 2 pages before I got bored then I read the last page, so my apologies if the topic has shifted. I stand by my claim that it is ridiculous to believe that evolution through natural selection and random mutation is possible.
<b>The idea that Qur'an supports the theory of evolution is supported widely even in some cases by traditionalists. For example you may check the site below</b>
Lots of things are supported widely bro, without facts it means nothing.
https//www.cfa.harvard.edu/~scranmer/SPD/crichton.html
^ this is a good article highlighting the logical flaws in giving weight to consensus opinions.
It's kinda long so I'll highlight the most relevant parts
<i>I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. <b>Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.</b> Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. <b>Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right</b>, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. <b>In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results.</b> The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth. One woman in six died of this fever. <b>In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post.</b> There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. <b>Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion</b> despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. <b>Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him.</b> There was, in addition, a social factor?southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result?despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and <b>Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology?until 1961,</b> when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. <b>Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy? The list of consensus errors goes on and on.</b>
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. <b>Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away.</b> It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.</i>
Anyway, about the link you gave me.. It seems like the guy is trying to force pieces of a puzzle no matter if they fit or not.
<b>Say "Travel through the Earth and see how He began the Creation. Then, Allah makes the latter Creation. Allah is capable of (doing) everything" (Al-'Ankaboot, 29 20). </b>
This states the Allah makes the latter creation, so it cannot be referring to Darwinian evolution.
<b>Have not those who disbelieve seen (known) that the heavens and the Earth were of one connected entity, then We separated them (from each other), and We made every living thing out of water? Will they not then believe? (Al-Anbiya', 21 30). </b>
How does "creating every living thing out of water" mean evolution..?
<b>O humans! Be pious (careful of your duty) to your Lord, Who created you from a single self (soul), and from it He created its mate, and from them He has spread a multitude of men and women (Al-Nissa, 4 1).</b>
This is obviously referring to Adam and Eve and their offspring. The author goes on to say
<b>This verse tells us that the beginning of life was a single self (soul), then its mate came out of it. Biological science tells us that the earliest form of life was represented by single cell organisms found in water, then these multiplied by splitting themselves. With the course of time, reproduction evolved to become by mating pairs, instead of the archaic forms of splitting or dividing.</b>
So from "single self" we get single celled organism? Then he goes on to say that they multiplied by splitting themselves, but the verse clearly says that God "created its mate".
And then it says "from them He has spread a multitude of men and women". This is obviously referring to sexual reproduction when if it was referring to unicellular life it should be asexual reproduction. Also unicellular life does not have gender.
<b>We know that almost all animals except kangaroos (and penguins) walk on four legs. However, for Prophet Muhammed (Peace and blessings be upon him) and old world humans at the time of revelation (1429 years ago), they did not know that there was an animal which walked on two legs in Australia. Only God knew that and has told us about it, as another piece of evidence that He is the author of the Holy Qur?an, not any human being.</b>
Sure, if you don't count arachnids and insects.. Also, birds are bipedal, I'm sure the Prophet was not a stranger to birds.
<b>32.7. (Allah is He) who has made everything He created better, and He began the creation of the human (being) out of clay.</b>
I can see how this could point to evolution, but still not Darwinian evolution. I could also make a case against it.
<i>"Here we report exceptionally preserved fossil eyes from the Early Cambrian (~515 million years ago) Emu Bay Shale of South Australia, revealing that <b>some of the earliest arthropods possessed highly advanced compound eyes, each with over 3,000 large ommatidial lenses</b> and a specialized ?bright zone?.
...
The arrangement and size of the lenses indicate that these eyes belonged to an active predator that was capable of seeing in low light. The eyes are more complex than those known from contemporaneous trilobites and <b>are as advanced as those of many living forms."</b></i>
http//www.nature.com/nature/journal/v474/n7353/abs/nature10097.html
Basically the oldest known bug eyes(from 515 mya) are as complex as many modern bug eyes.
<b>50.15. Were We then tired with the first creation? (No), they (nonbelievers) are in confusion about a new creation (resurrection).
This verse confirms the meaning included in 32.7, saying that there was a first creation, the creation of life, which then evolved according to a long process of learning how to adaptat to the environemnt.</b>
It doesn't confirm 327 at all, it is talking about different things. 327 is talking about how God created Humanity, 5015 is talking about our resurrection from what I can tell.
<b>The scientific evidence available to us tells us that the beginning of life was in an environment similar to swamps, which are composed basically of water and and earth matter. This produced clay, where the first forms of life began in the form of single cell organisms. </b>
What is the scientific evidence suggesting that this is how life started? Also clay only has trace amounts of organic matter.
<b>71.14. He has created you in diverse (and successive) stages.</b>
I can also see how this could indicate that divinely guided evolution is true, but it is still at odds with Darwinian evolution. But it could also be referring to the developmental stages of a human from zygote to embryo to fetus etc.
Anyway it is a long article so I hope you'll forgive me but I'm going to stop my analysis here. If there is a point you think stands out feel free to highlight it and I will do my best to answer.