The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions
-
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,
-
Hi,
What you just said is not right. Adaptation is not evolution.
Evolution involves two interrelated phenomena
adaptation
Over the course of time, species modify their phenotypes in ways that permit them to succeed in their environment.This page is devoted to looking at how evolution leads to adaptation.
speciation
Over the course of time, the number of species multiplies; that is, a single species can give rise to two or more descendant species. In fact, Darwin maintained that all species are related; that is, any two species on earth today have shared a common ancestor at some point in their history.Regards,
-
Salam,
O GOD!!!! It will take me ages to read those massive posts. I must read them.
I believe in adaptation , which leads to micro-evolution. And as we all may know, grains of sand can make up a dessert and drops of water can accumulate into an ocean, so does micro-evolution translates to Macro-evolution over time.
PEACE
May God enlighten us
--------------------------- Student of Allah
-
Salam again,
I was going through the 20 QAs (did not finish most of it though). I realized that if one was to debunk your ideas, it would take couple of hundred posts. But I prefer short cut now. Consider this as academic process rather than conflict.
In the beginning you said something, that makes me not want to read the entire thesis that you came up with. let me quote
This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact.
However, even today many people think that the theory is a proven fact, like the force of gravity or the law of buoyancy. Because, as stated at the beginning, the true nature of the theory of evolution is very different from what is usually supposed. For this reason, some people do not know what rotten foundations this theory has, how it is disproved by science at every turn, and how evolutionists are trying to keep it alive in its death throes. Evolutionists have no other support than unconfirmed hypotheses, biased and unrealistic observations, and imaginary drawings, methods of psychological suggestion, countless falsehoods, and sleight-of-hand techniques.
Seriously ? You seriously have never come across any scientific evidence for evolution ? You think its all imaginary drawings ? All hypothesis ?
Amazing...... this reminds me of the countless hours of withstanding the young earth creationists and the flat earth creationists.
Lets see I get the time to open 20 threads for the 20 questions. But seriously, "no evidence" ?
Allah knows best
------------------------- Student of Allah
-
salam
i would like to thanks the author jonny_k for this great post. bravo
i knew many of what it was said but i learned many other things. Thanks again.I rejected evolution as "science" many years ago (same year i rejected hadiths).
"Evolution" is to scientifc ayats (like quran call them) what hadiths are to quran ayats. It's lies, Bullshit, and perversion of truth.my first appreciation was that it is impossible for any process based on triyng and errors to create what we see.
It is like writing a book by tiping characters by chance. impossiblethe second was that evolution works by "continuity". That is changes are light changes over millions of years. However discontinuities exists and can't be explained
-First cell
-First ADN
-flying (birds, insects...)
-invention of sex (one gives two to two gives one)in fact, each biological mecanism is a problem
how evolution knew that we need to see and how it created eyes ? to what served the proto-eyes before they were able to see ?When i studied evolution to find the reponse to the evident discontinuities, i found no response.
Evolution is like the technique of "computer morphing". It works on appearance and forget mecanisms.
Even simple growth is complicated. Our industry cannot create a simple mecanism that can work while growing.
Life is too complicated for chance.
in fact, astrophysicians meets the same problem.
Universe is too complicated for chance. See http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principlepeace