So i was talking of darwin to some friend
-
The creationist 2 day theory is not something that Muslims believe since we know a day for God is thousand years of what we count. We also know the day of judgement can be many years long and not 24 human hours.
In light of evidence, I find that literalistic interpretation to be dubious, it is most clearly a metaphor, an alleorical verse. Maybe it will be explained by God soon, maybe not. But we must not fall into the fool's trap - currently, this is creationism.
Also, it may be that evolution is dubious in the grand scheme of things - but debunking it alone will do nothing, as Harun Yahya intends. Maybe if this Yahya character could actually propose a new theory other than "God did it"? He cannot.
I prefer written though, I can't stand video narration, it's a pet peeve of mine, and it's why I long ago forsook the TV for the computer )
Is there a transcript of those videos around?
Well why, thats why we have sheikh google. Do some searches if you want written material. But I believe evolution debate is kind of like the hadith debate, there is no smoking gun and it goes in circles. brickwall
-
Sheikh Google, I like that. Far more knowledgable than the other Sheikhs. One would say he has the knowledge of a thousand computers.
-
- Knowing that He has created you by various stages?
Instant creation is rejected by God. Unguided evolution also, this is why I'm in the middle. I have read all Harun Yayha's works, also I have studied Biochemistry myself, so I'm aquinted with all the aspects of the current evolution theory.
What Harun Yayha completely ignores, is that the missing transformational beings is caused by stagionaire evolution, were big leaps of change occur in small amounts of time. Also, his concepts of macro and micro evolution are many times incorrect. But this discussion have been held already.
I reccommend to buy this book
http//www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_b/203-1923746-7411913?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=shanavas&Go.x=0&Go.y=0
It discusses all sides and the history of the Muslim evolution theory. It is a must read.
-
RAj-ah,
If you want to see 'macroevolution' or big changes caused by evolution, you can go to an agricultural fair or dog show. Breeders use evolution deliberately to shape their animals/plants according to their liking, and they have some documentation of the origin of some breeds.
You might say, "But that is artificial!" of which I would answer, it's only possible because there already are natural mechanisms to be exploited. Breeders just speed up the process.
You also might say, "They're still the same species!" of which I would use Darwin's words, he said concerning the breeds of pigeons, if they were presented to a naturalist who had no prior knowledge about the history of pigeon breeding the naturalist would consider the birds as members of different species.
-
RAj-ah,
If you want to see 'macroevolution' or big changes caused by evolution, you can go to an agricultural fair or dog show. Breeders use evolution deliberately to shape their animals/plants according to their liking, and they have some documentation of the origin of some breeds.
You might say, "But that is artificial!" of which I would answer, it's only possible because there already are natural mechanisms to be exploited. Breeders just speed up the process.
You also might say, "They're still the same species!" of which I would use Darwin's words, he said concerning the breeds of pigeons, if they were presented to a naturalist who had no prior knowledge about the history of pigeon breeding the naturalist would consider the birds as members of different species.
Why are you using pigeons and dogs as example. Who cares what people in the past would have thought, they are still inter breeding of same species. There are more than 100,000 thousands of different species you could have brought an example of. But you can't.
So just say so, say I can't and stop using inter breeding of Dogs and Pigeons to prove your point. There is NO EVIDENCE IN EARTH OR OTHERWISE of any species that can gain any DNA structure beyond what it has, so give yourself a break. Evolution is not science, its an observation and an assumption.
-
So just say so, say I can't and stop using inter breeding of Dogs and Pigeons to prove your point. There is NO EVIDENCE IN EARTH OR OTHERWISE of any species that can gain any DNA structure beyond what it has, so give yourself a break. Evolution is not science, its an observation and an assumption.
Said someone who never bothers to actually study the evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
All species (all living things with DNA, actually) CAN gain DNA 'structures' beyond what it has. DNA mutates all the time. I reckon you yourself have maybe 100 new mutations in your DNA.
Science IS observation (of facts) and assumption (creation of theories). What do you think it is if it's not those two?
-
Peace,
The biggest problem here is, that many people don't understand that
- Evolution theory was developed by the Muslims, who saw it as Intelligent Design.
- It is completely confirmed by the QUran.
- Creationism goes against the Quran, as the QUran always refers to development in stages AND more importantly, development out of other species.
- Muslims reject Evolution because it is linked to Western materialism, thus base it on emotion and not on reason.
- We must always look at the bigger picture and outlines. Yes, there are still holes in the theories, but this has nothing to do with it being false. This has to dow ith that we are searching for the empirical evidence that can plug the holes.
I suggest the book from T.O.Shavanas "Creation and/or Evolution" which explains it all and will teach some real science.
-
Said someone who never bothers to actually study the evidence.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
All species (all living things with DNA, actually) CAN gain DNA 'structures' beyond what it has. DNA mutates all the time. I reckon you yourself have maybe 100 new mutations in your DNA.
Science IS observation (of facts) and assumption (creation of theories). What do you think it is if it's not those two?
There is nothing in the article you posted that says that because there is no proof of any macroevolution and its not likely to be one. I would be very skeptical about any science that Darwanist bring you, its is a religious ideology as much as it is a science.
-
There is nothing in the article you posted that says that because there is no proof of any macroevolution and its not likely to be one. I would be very skeptical about any science that Darwanist bring you, its is a religious ideology as much as it is a science.
What can I say? Your mind's already made up. It would be futile for me to offer you evidence. brickwall
-
What can I say? Your mind's already made up. It would be futile for me to offer you evidence. brickwall
I am not stubborn as people think, this is one of the problems with non face to face communication. '(
I am just going to tell you be carefull when you are dealing with evolutionary science, the scientist are mostly atheist and have very strong attachments with evolution science. They will tell you amny things without explaining it or misleading you. All the experiments they have done is micro evolution especially with the fruit fly, all the experiments produced deformed non functional variations and not one was beneficial. And all the fruit fly polulation recovered their normal genes in future generations. There is no evidence ever of any macro evolution and no evidence ever of any mutation that has benefits to an organism, mutations are mal functions and not benefits. Most scientist in biology are atheist, so I am just saying they know evolution is their meal ticket and have a dogmatic attachment to it. Like Sunnis with hadiths, I am not stubborn, I used to believe in it till I started seeing debates and counter arguments and detected that the scientist hide stuff and use deception.
You know about the famous Richard Dawkins 14 seconds of silence when asked this specific question, notice his answer, time, time can make the impossible happen. Is this science, that time can make anything happen?
We know that plates are moving around the Earth as we speak, we know that activity is taking place in the mountain ranges and height, we know that plates are overlapping and goiing in some cases underneath eact other as we speak. We know stars are born, galaxies are forming, stars are bursting and other activities as we speak. Yet when it comes to evolution, we have nothing. Thats why I am skeptical because the evidence does not match the theory yet its presented by scientist as if it does.
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMoQf5CG93c
-
I am just going to tell you be carefull when you are dealing with evolutionary science, the scientist are mostly atheist and have very strong attachments with evolution science. They will tell you amny things without explaining it or misleading you. All the experiments they have done is micro evolution especially with the fruit fly, all the experiments produced deformed non functional variations and not one was beneficial. And all the fruit fly polulation recovered their normal genes in future generations. There is no evidence ever of any macro evolution and no evidence ever of any mutation that has benefits to an organism, mutations are mal functions and not benefits. Most scientist in biology are atheist, so I am just saying they know evolution is their meal ticket and have a dogmatic attachment to it. Like Sunnis with hadiths, I am not stubborn, I used to believe in it till I started seeing debates and counter arguments and detected that the scientist hide stuff and use deception.
Like I said, you didn't look like you'd even bother to look at the evidence from that FAQ I gave you. Fruit flies? I could show you some breeding experiments that gave them beneficial features, but chances are you're gonna say 'they're still flies'. Microevolution repeated countless times becomes macroevolution. This kind of extrapolation is standard practice in science; even 'direct evidence' of the Big Bang is similar to 'microevolution' because it consists of small remnants of the primordial explosion.
You know about the famous Richard Dawkins 14 seconds of silence when asked this specific question, notice his answer, time, time can make the impossible happen. Is this science, that time can make anything happen?
Yes I know, and it's explained here http//www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
He wasn't trying to say that given time, what can happen is not the impossible, but events with small probability. The two are different things. Impossible things can never happen. Improbable things can happen, very rarely.
We know that plates are moving around the Earth as we speak, we know that activity is taking place in the mountain ranges and height, we know that plates are overlapping and goiing in some cases underneath eact other as we speak. We know stars are born, galaxies are forming, stars are bursting and other activities as we speak. Yet when it comes to evolution, we have nothing. Thats why I am skeptical because the evidence does not match the theory yet its presented by scientist as if it does.
Wow, what double standard! Evidence for all things that you mentioned is of the 'microevolution' type--we don't see the actual separation of America and the Old World, we see mid-Atlantic seafloor spreading by centimeters per year and then extrapolate to say that once the Americas were joined with Africa and Europe millions of years ago. Same goes to evolution we observe examples of natural selection causing changes in organisms' traits and we extrapolate that this process adds up to large-scale evolution taking place in millions of years. But somehow you don't want to extrapolate when it comes to evolution. I'm not surprised.
And about atheist scientists... funny when they say something religious people like, the religious forget that the scientists are still atheists and embraced the scientists' ideas.
-
Like I said, you didn't look like you'd even bother to look at the evidence from that FAQ I gave you. Fruit flies? I could show you some breeding experiments that gave them beneficial features, but chances are you're gonna say 'they're still flies'. Microevolution repeated countless times becomes macroevolution. This kind of extrapolation is standard practice in science; even 'direct evidence' of the Big Bang is similar to 'microevolution' because it consists of small remnants of the primordial explosion.
Yes I know, and it's explained here http//www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html
He wasn't trying to say that given time, what can happen is not the impossible, but events with small probability. The two are different things. Impossible things can never happen. Improbable things can happen, very rarely.
Wow, what double standard! Evidence for all things that you mentioned is of the 'microevolution' type--we don't see the actual separation of America and the Old World, we see mid-Atlantic seafloor spreading by centimeters per year and then extrapolate to say that once the Americas were joined with Africa and Europe millions of years ago. Same goes to evolution we observe examples of natural selection causing changes in organisms' traits and we extrapolate that this process adds up to large-scale evolution taking place in millions of years. But somehow you don't want to extrapolate when it comes to evolution. I'm not surprised.
And about atheist scientists... funny when they say something religious people like, the religious forget that the scientists are still atheists and embraced the scientists' ideas.
I know about Stephen Jay, he is one of the reasons I began to see Darwanism as a dogma. Like Sunni Islam they will tell us what they think we should know, never presenting the facts. When cornered as we know they are forced to downplay themselves. Otherwise they will run their mouth like everything is all gravy and cream.
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
"The fundamental reason why a lot of paleontologists don't care much for gradualism is because the fossil record doesn't show gradual change and every paleontologist has know that ever since Cuvier. If you want to get around that you have to invoke the imperfection of the fossil record. Every paleontologist knows that most species, most species, don't change. That's bothersome if you are trained to believe that evolution ought to be gradual. In fact it virtually precludes your studying the very process you went into the school to study. Again, because you don't see it, that brings terrible distress." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould)
A NEW SPECIES IS NEVER PRODUCED
The fruit flies always remain fruit flies.After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none of these changes the fruit fly to a different species.
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."?*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.
*"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."?Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual?would still not produce a new species!
"In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a species in nature."?*Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!
"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."?*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe Where Darwin Went Wrong (1982), p. 61.
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MUTATED FRUIT FLIES?
We have had opportunity to clearly learn what mutations do to a physical organism.Fruit flies which receive mutations are always weakened in one way or another.
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
The mutated creatures die out, when placed out in nature with normal hardy specimens.
"A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated . . Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g. not a single one of the several hundred of Drosophila mutation), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory."?*H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildng (1957), p. 1186.
The classical example of the damaging effects of mutations is to be found in what scientists have done to fruit flies by inducing mutations in them.
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."?*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man (1955), p. 105.
No new-species fruit flies have ever resulted from sixty years of irradiation the poor creatures.
"It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world?flies which produce a new generation every eleven days?they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme."?*Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (1983), p. 48.
Pitman says the experiments have only produced geneticists' monsters.
"Take the example of fruit flies (Drosophila). Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type."?*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), p. 70.
SUMMARY
Once a fruit fly, always a fruit fly.http//www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/10mut10.htm
I love the ending ;D
I am not saying that evolution is proven to be true or false, I am just saying I like to be careful about the science behind it, its very shaky and its inflated and often the science thats discovered questions the theory. Or so it seems. But many scientist never clarify them due to their dogma except when they are cornered . There is no observation that has EVER been found to show how any type of evolution is occuring in any of the millions of life form on Earth. While we see it in plate tectonics and star formation, we have never seen it in life form. Why should organizm evolution just stop.
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
And why all this, because for an atheist this is the problem
"Evolution is a theory universally accepted, not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, 'special creation,' is clearly impossible." (D.M.S. Watson, Professor of Zoology, London University)
They have to believe in it, thats why.
-
See, I told you. You're not being fair with the evidence.
Microevolution is just like seafloor spreading or Big Bang radiation remnants. Small-scale evidence that can validly be extrapolated to larger events (Evolution, Big Bang, continental drift). We know there is observational evidence of evolution at a small scale. You just don't want to extrapolate it because you're already committed to see evolution as false.
And I know you didn't even bother to read the link from stephenjaygould.org because it wasn't SJG talking, it was someone else analysing creationist tactics to make Dawkins look foolish. Instead you try to shift the argument by selectively quoting SJG as if he's a creationist... I could use your tactic quoting the same person saying that transitional forms had been found, or evolution is the best theory ever.
And your sources are old. Cut-n-paste from creationist sites, I guess.
-
See, I told you. You're not being fair with the evidence.
Microevolution is just like seafloor spreading or Big Bang radiation remnants. Small-scale evidence that can validly be extrapolated to larger events (Evolution, Big Bang, continental drift). We know there is observational evidence of evolution at a small scale. You just don't want to extrapolate it because you're already committed to see evolution as false.
And I know you didn't even bother to read the link from stephenjaygould.org because it wasn't SJG talking, it was someone else analysing creationist tactics to make Dawkins look foolish. Instead you try to shift the argument by selectively quoting SJG as if he's a creationist... I could use your tactic quoting the same person saying that transitional forms had been found, or evolution is the best theory ever.
And your sources are old. Cut-n-paste from creationist sites, I guess.
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
-
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
We have been civilised at most for 4000-6000 years. I don't think, even if your great-great-great-*100-grandfather were alive, he would even observe macroevolution. That sort of thing takes hundreds of millions of years, billions even.
-
If there was small scale evolution then by now some organism would have gone somewhere in their evolutionary path. Yet we see nothing, all species are exactly the way they are.
I don't know maybe I am the stubborn one but I think the evidence is too weak to be science and remains scientifically unattainable. There are volcanoes that erupt every now and then all across our solar system and we know stars burst and some are just forming yet we have never seen any evolutionary changes in species, most who have been around for millions and millions of years. By now these small scale evolutions should have manifested itself and there should be literally millions of transitional species but i see nothing, nobody has seen nothing so know its faith and not science. giveup
Well, check back the fossil record of, say, one million years ago. The humans are different. A lot of the animals are different.
Go back further, say 5 million years ago. You won't see humans but you might see ancient apes. Also the beasts get less familiar. The elephants, horses would be different.
Go back even further and you'll see life getting less and less similar to what we see today.
Of course by now these small scale evolutions have manifested itself. All life forms today are the product of those millions of years of evolution!
Btw, you accept both Big Bang and plate tectonics right? Those two also imply extrapolations of a similar scale. If you trace back into an initial state based on the current movement rate of galaxies, you get one spot (the Big Bang) after some billions of years. That's an extrapolation far longer than all evolution. Same goes with plate tectonics. If we trace back the formation time of the Atlantic Ocean based on current seafloor spreading rates, we find that it started to form (which is similar with saying America and the old world began to separate) some 150 million years ago. Back then dinosaurs were still around!
So there should be no obstacles against extrapolating the small changes of microevolution into large-scale evolution.