Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Guest Stefan

This is why I find Richard Dawkins intellectually dishonest when he says things like "it is time we rejected the theory of evolution and accept evolution as a fact" because all he is really saying is he cannot provide an adequate account of evolution. Given articles like the above, I'd like to ask him what facts about evolution are we expected to accept?

Dawkins said that in the context of talking about the big amount of evidence for evolution, and the Oxford dictionary defining theory as "hypothesis" or "speculation".He certainly didn't mean to say that he cannot provide an adequate account of evolution.

I don't see what's intelectually dishonest about what he said.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/dawkins-urges-students-consider-evolution-fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dawkins said that in the context of talking about the big amount of evidence for evolution, and the Oxford dictionary defining theory as "hypothesis" or "speculation".He certainly didn't mean to say that he cannot provide an adequate account of evolution.

I don't see what's intelectually dishonest about what he said.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/dawkins-urges-students-consider-evolution-fact

it is intellectually dishonest because it conveniently omits what a theory is meant to do according to the standard dictionary definitions, which is to explain or account for a phenomenon, irrespective of whether this originates from a hypothesis, idea or speculation. This is typified by his quote at the end of your article:

'Despite its precision, he said evolution is not without its design flaws.

“Evolution cannot go back to the drawing board,” Dawkins said. “It has to improve step by step, generation by generation.”'

This is all I need to to know about Dawkins' failure to construct a theory/explanation and I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to accept the fact of my existence as a "fact" of evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is intellectually dishonest because it conveniently omits what a theory is meant to do according to the standard dictionary definitions, which is to explain or account for a phenomenon, irrespective of whether this originates from a hypothesis, idea or speculation. This is typified by his quote at the end of your article:

'Despite its precision, he said evolution is not without its design flaws.

“Evolution cannot go back to the drawing board,” Dawkins said. “It has to improve step by step, generation by generation.”'

This is all I need to to know about Dawkins' failure to construct a theory/explanation and I'm sorry, I'm not prepared to accept the fact of my existence as a "fact" of evolution.

Well, the thing is, evolution is a theory, and a fact. Just as gravity is a theory and a fact. Dawkins in the article is just saying...we should quit referring to it as a theory because it misleads people who are unfamiliar with it. And if we refer to it more as the fact of evolution, which it is, then people will be more inclined to look into its evidence and actually take it seriously.

The article says, despite its precision, he said evolution is not without its design flaws. And this is just as i was saying before with your article about proteins. You can change the design of cars to better understand them, but the fact that the car exists is a fact, within an entire theory that explains car design. And so, Dawkins can say, yes it is a fact, and also in reference to the wider scope and theory, say that how exactly that fact has occurred with 100% knowlege, still has yet to be completely 100% explained. Thus, it has to improve step by step, generation by generation, which it has for over 150-200 years now since it was proposed.

Shamoun, you should check out my very first post, and see what you think about it.

Everyone in this topic so far has brought up certain ideas about different things, but i have yet to see anyone actually respond to my statement about the fossil succession, or ERVs or the correlation of phylogenetic trees. And those are really important in understanding the topic.

And actually, now that ive mentioned it. Gravity is still being added onto as well, step by step, generation by generation. Although gravity is a fact that it occurs, it is still explained in an overall theory, and that theory, especially with all of the dark matter concepts being tossed around, is most certain subject to change.

And so, gravity is a fact and a theory, just as evolution is a fact and a theory.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we not all come from a single cell? If that is the case, then why is there such a split in the living creatures

DNA mutates and undergoes a process called genetic drift, and changes and thus creates diversity. Natural selection supports certain variations in certain environments (polar bears in polar regions, todays non furry elephants in warm regions), and by supporting these variations, promotes large splits in living things, morphologically. And so all living things that are DNA based (all living things on the planet including the single celled organisms), will have a lot of diversity. In todays time, diversity is actually a necessity for survival. Things like incest lead to extinction of organisms, such as the situation the cheetah is currently struggling with now.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the thing is, evolution is a theory, and a fact. Just as gravity is a theory and a fact. Dawkins in the article is just saying...we should quit referring to it as a theory because it misleads people who are unfamiliar with it. And if we refer to it more as the fact of evolution, which it is, then people will be more inclined to look into its evidence and actually take it seriously.

The article says, despite its precision, he said evolution is not without its design flaws. And this is just as i was saying before with your article about proteins. You can change the design of cars to better understand them, but the fact that the car exists is a fact, within an entire theory that explains car design. And so, Dawkins can say, yes it is a fact, and also in reference to the wider scope and theory, say that how exactly that fact has occurred with 100% knowlege, still has yet to be completely 100% explained. Thus, it has to improve step by step, generation by generation, which it has for over 150-200 years now since it was proposed.

Shamoun, you should check out my very first post, and see what you think about it.

Everyone in this topic so far has brought up certain ideas about different things, but i have yet to see anyone actually respond to my statement about the fossil succession, or ERVs or the correlation of phylogenetic trees. And those are really important in understanding the topic.

And actually, now that ive mentioned it. Gravity is still being added onto as well, step by step, generation by generation. Although gravity is a fact that it occurs, it is still explained in an overall theory, and that theory, especially with all of the dark matter concepts being tossed around, is most certain subject to change.

And so, gravity is a fact and a theory, just as evolution is a fact and a theory.

I'm not a biologist, nor have I undertaken the same research which you have done. I cannot therefore question the concept of a phylogenetic tree but it is interesting to look at the practice of xenotransplantation for comparison. If it is correct that it is inappropriate to have chimpanzee or baboon organs implanted into human tissue because of their phylogenetic proximity to humans and the greater risk of disease transmission, it is paradoxical from an evolutionary point of view that pig implants are considered to have a greater chance of survival because of their greater phylogenetic distance from humans.

If the "theory" of evolution is not just about "survival of the fittest" as the article I posted earlier suggested, then why do we not see evidence of more diseased species along the phylogenetic branch than we currently do? This is why I have been harping on about a theory/explanation for evolution because unless a coherent explanation can be put forward, the concept will quickly run into difficulties.

This means I'm absolutely fine with ditching the word "theory" from evolution but would Dawkins be prepared to concede that he cannot "explain" how evolution works as a result? I don't think he would do this so readily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a biologist, nor have I undertaken the same research which you have done. I cannot therefore question the concept of a phylogenetic tree but it is interesting to look at the practice of xenotransplantation for comparison. If it is correct that it is inappropriate to have chimpanzee or baboon organs implanted into human tissue because of their phylogenetic proximity to humans and the greater risk of disease transmission, it is paradoxical from an evolutionary point of view that pig implants are considered to have a greater chance of survival because of their greater phylogenetic distance from humans.

If the "theory" of evolution is not just about "survival of the fittest" as the article I posted earlier suggested, then why do we not see evidence of more diseased species along the phylogenetic branch than we currently do? This is why I have been harping on about a theory/explanation for evolution because unless a coherent explanation can be put forward, the concept will quickly run into difficulties.

This means I'm absolutely fine with ditching the word "theory" from evolution but would Dawkins be prepared to concede that he cannot "explain" how evolution works as a result? I don't think he would do this so readily.

from my understanding, humans would not be able to accept chimpanzee, baboon, or pig organs.

About diseased species, all species hold diseases in one form or another, but i honestly dont understand exactly what your question means. The article you posted earlier did indeed suggest that survival of the fittest does occur ~ "Natural selection is a theory with no equal in terms of its power to explain how organisms and populations survive through the ages; random mutations that are helpful to an organism are maintained while harmful ones are bred out.".

Here is a video that makes a brief mention of ERVs for a better understanding of how phylogenetic trees work

and then this next video talks a little bit about how the phylogenetic trees from various independent fields of study, match up.

Did you watch the other videos by chance? One of my favorites is this one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

If it is correct that it is inappropriate to have chimpanzee or baboon organs implanted into human tissue because of their phylogenetic proximity to humans and the greater risk of disease transmission, it is paradoxical from an evolutionary point of view that pig implants are considered to have a greater chance of survival because of their greater phylogenetic distance from humans.

We'd have a paradox if the human DNA was more closely related to the pig's DNA than to the chimp's DNA.That would invalidate the phylogenetic tree.

But the fact that a human can live (for a while) with a pig's heart and not with a chimp's heart is just a weirdness that surely has an explanation (not related to the theory of evolution) which I will search for and then come back here to give it to you.Stay tuned.

For the moment, think about this : the mammals and the birds have warm blood.But the both groups evolved from reptiles which have cold blood.The warm blood is not a proof against evolution; it just means that a certain feature can develop independently on two or more separated evolutionary branches.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We'd have a paradox if the human DNA was more closely related to the pig's DNA than to the chimp's DNA.That would invalidate the phylogenetic tree.

But the fact that a human can live (for a while) with a pig's heart and not with a chimp's heart is just a weirdness that surely has an explanation (not related to the theory of evolution) which I will search for and then come back here to give it to you.Stay tuned.

For the moment, think about this : the mammals and the birds have warm blood.But the both groups evolved from reptiles which have cold blood.The warm blood is not a proof against evolution; it just means that a certain feature can develop independently on two or more separated evolutionary branches.

I just looked a bit into it, feel free to add on. When i first heard "heart transplant" from a pig, automatically i ignored it assuming it was some propaganda argument made up by some looney people. Fact of the matter is, the human body in many cases cant even handle other human parts let alone a pigs, Our cells depending on the transplant will attack foreign cells and itll make a big mess. Im no expert on cellular biology, but from my understanding this is what happens. So after you brought it up, i did some googling.

"The porcine (or pig) heart is most similar to the human heart, and therefore represents the best anatomical fit for replacement.There are some risks associated with a Xenograft such as the human body's tendency to reject foreign material. Medication can be used to retard this effect, but is not always successful."

Thankfully, i discovered that we werent actually talking about entire heart transplants, but rather valve transplants which are in part mechanical as well, and indeed there are complications with this. Ok, so now that, that silly idea is out of the way just out of interest i kept looking. But also, we can all take note of "best anatomical fit". And so, its more about the shape of the valve.

"The animal organ, probably from a pig or baboon could be genetically altered with human genes to trick a patient’s immune system into accepting it as a part of its own body."

ok so apparently baboon valves have been tested with as well, and on top of that, they manipulate the genes, which manipulate the proteins thus tricking the patients immune system into accepting it as part of their body, as it says. So the patient cells wont wage war with themselves.

"raditional tissue valves, made of pig heart valves, will last on average 15 years before they require replacement (but typically less in younger patients)."

ok so, 15 years? this is clearly a temporary solution. My heart goes out to the patients

outside of that

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18374129

yea have fun with that. Im by no means an expert in the field, but the paper is stating...

"intracellular blocking of death receptor-mediated apoptotic signals by overexpression of c-FLIP S/L"

apoptosis is also known as "programmed cell death" and its what occurs when cells in some cases discover foreign bodies, so, whatever this c-FLIP S/L is, it causes issues with the protein receptors that trigger the cell death.

In conclusion, it has nothing to do with evolution as you said earlier, and i agree. Well, its not completely dissociated, but it appears to be more dependent upon the anatomy of the valve in regards to its shape. Not only that, but genetic alteration precautions are taken (and even these dont always work). And since were not talking about replacing an entire heart (which i previously thought), i have settled my own curiosity.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Stefan

If it is correct that it is inappropriate to have chimpanzee or baboon organs implanted into human tissue because of their phylogenetic proximity to humans and the greater risk of disease transmission, it is paradoxical from an evolutionary point of view that pig implants are considered to have a greater chance of survival because of their greater phylogenetic distance from humans.

Here's the response from David Wynick, professor of Molecular Medicine at the University of Bristol:

"Their are isolated cases for both from the last century but in neither case did the human recipient live for more than a day or two. Neither are in current clinical use nor in clinical trials. I can't vouch for the veracity of all of the information in the link below but most of it tallies with what I know.

http://www.freewebs.com/xenotransplantation/infoonxenotransplantation.htm

Leaving aside the ethics of killing chimpanzees for this purpose their hearts are not big enough to support the human circulation longer term.

In contrast a adult pig heart is the right size and more importantly their genomes can be altered to be "humanised" to stop human rejection. That said the science of xenotransplantation is still a long way off human studies and many hurdles need to be overcome including the risk of transmission of pig viruses to humans which is a real concern."

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=6109

You can't expect Dawkins to know everything.

Edited by Stefan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the response from David Wynick, professor of Molecular Medicine at the University of Bristol:

"Their are isolated cases for both from the last century but in neither case did the human recipient live for more than a day or two. Neither are in current clinical use nor in clinical trials. I can't vouch for the veracity of all of the information in the link below but most of it tallies with what I know.

http://www.freewebs.com/xenotransplantation/infoonxenotransplantation.htm

Leaving aside the ethics of killing chimpanzees for this purpose their hearts are not big enough to support the human circulation longer term.

In contrast a adult pig heart is the right size and more importantly their genomes can be altered to be "humanised" to stop human rejection. That said the science of xenotransplantation is still a long way off human studies and many hurdles need to be overcome including the risk of transmission of pig viruses to humans which is a real concern."

http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=6109

You can't expect Dawkins to know everything.

excellent, nice website too, i think ill add that to my favorites

i am wondering why Evolution Theory is discussed in philosophy forum rather than science forum?

fair question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

excellent, nice website too, i think ill add that to my favorites

fair question

I think what im going to do now is...make a new topic on, implications of the story of Adam and Eve, in regards to the theory of evolution.

Thats where the conversation usually gets hot. When you take information of the theory, and you use it to make predictions about other things.

As seen in this discussion, we can take implications drawn from one field of evolutionary study such as...paleontology, and we can effectively make accurate predictions in other independent fields using the theory such as comparative anatomy and genetics.

For example, using the theory of evolution, i should be able to predict the anatomical and genetic makeup of Adam, i should be able to tell roughly where Adam and Eve were located on earth and when they were located on earth based on mutation rates and and the analysis of Adam and Eves descendants. I should be able to determine what strata in the earth, their fossils, if they have them, would be located, and the strata in which all of their descendants are located. And, if i am not able to find these things, then theory of evolution is in trouble.

We can figure these things out with every other living thing, and if evolution is indeed true in the case of Adam and Eve, we should be able to apply the theory to them too.

But what happens when we attempt to draw conclusions on scripture, using the combined efforts of the various independent studies? What do we find, what do we determine from it, and what does it really mean?

to be continued...

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On ERVs (endogenous retroviruses, just to help clear this up). Here is the summation of a discussion i had in the live chat.

so lets say, my DNA is made of 100 molecules, Ok so, Endogenous retroviruses are viruses, that...they attack and they leave little markers in our DNA, in our molecules. So lets say out of my 100 molecules, i get attacked by an endogenous retrovirus and it leaves its mark in between my 5th and 6th molecules out of 100. Ok so, after it attacks me in between my 5th and 6th molecule, now...when i have a child and that child has 100 molecules, and has an exact replica of my DNA, that child will have the same marker. Ok so...now, if i look at my childs DNA, where would i expect the find the marker?

An, exact replica would mean a marker in between the 5th and the 6th molecule, yes exactly, and if i have 2 children, the same applies, In reality our DNA is not always exactly identical to our parents( we may undergo mutations and such), but for sake of the discussion, it is fairly identical to our parents. And also of course our DNA isnt made of 100 molecules, its something more like 3.000,000,000 base pairs, but again, for the sake of discussion we can just say we have 100 molecules in a chain that make our DNA.

in reality, we find ERVs in our DNA that are in the same place as ERVs in chimps, and not just 1 or 2 ERVs, but hundreds,

Now, in addition lets say, my children have 1 ERV, and my children get attacked, ok so now my grandchildren have 2 ERVs, so now i can create a tree of relatedness based on the number of shared ERVs that all living things have, know what i mean? like i can make a tree and i can show that my grand children will be small branches (initially with 2 ERVs) and my children will be medium branches (initially with 1 ERV) and i will be the trunk of the tree (initially with 0 ERVs). Now i have a phylogentic tree for my family. And i can do this based on the number of ERVs that we share, and i can do the same thing with all mammals in the animal kingdom.

Now, for the actual reason i mentioned the phylogenetic tree. The tree that we can make from our ERVs alone, is identical to the trees we make with fossils, the trees we make with comparative anatomy, the trees we make with genetics, the trees we make with biogeography etc etc etc etc.

I do not think it is a coincidence that these trees are all identical for no reason :P.

ok so, please pardon my grammer for this post. Again its just a bunch of copying and pasting from the live chat, so bare with me :P. but i hope this helps with understanding what its about. Obviously, the material is a lot more detailed and in depth, and there are things i didnt mention specifically to keep it simple and easy to understand.

And here is a video, toward the end of the video, the person describes Endogenous retroviruses briefly, and it has some nice pictures to help with understanding. ok thanks everyone.

And this picture may help, with understanding the phylogenetic tree and relatedness of living things based on shared ERVs

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://vir.sgmjournals.org/content/vol80/issue10/images/medium/0802613005.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi%3Faction%3Dmsg%26f%3D9%26t%3D79%26m%3D1&usg=__-J4OpO_8fKIJqq9pTvcM0QgBI34=&h=251&w=440&sz=19&hl=en&start=20&zoom=1&tbnid=Ahkywb4W8OF_LM:&tbnh=120&tbnw=211&ei=u9jaTYyWPMPogQfotu1X&prev=/search%3Fq%3Derv%2Bphlogenetic%2Btree%2Band%2Binsertion%2Bpoint%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1275%26bih%3D640%26tbm%3Disch0%2C535&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=850&vpy=251&dur=3159&hovh=169&hovw=297&tx=154&ty=135&sqi=2&page=2&ndsp=19&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:20&biw=1275&bih=640

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about ERV .....

this is about a sequence of viral genome found in other living creature -mostly dysfunctional genome or defective-

The process though which this viral genome had been replicated and carried by non viral offspring is called Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is : also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved. wiki

and let me quote whats been written in the section about the role of this transfer in evolution :

Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[36] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.

For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in prokaryotes is the 16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[citation needed]

Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."[12] There exist several methods to infer such phylogenetic networks.

Using single genes as phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal phylogeny in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. Combining the simple coalescence model of cladogenesis with rare HGT horizontal gene transfer events suggest there was no single most recent common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1

http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/common-ancestery-AIC-test-paper.pdf

Edited by yassameen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

about ERV .....

this is about a sequence of viral genome found in other living creature -mostly dysfunctional genome or defective-

The process though which this viral genome had been replicated and carried by non viral offspring is called Horizontal gene transfer

Horizontal gene transfer is : also lateral gene transfer (LGT), is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. By contrast, vertical transfer occurs when an organism receives genetic material from its ancestor, e.g., its parent or a species from which it has evolved. wiki

and let me quote whats been written in the section about the role of this transfer in evolution :

Horizontal gene transfer is a potential confounding factor in inferring phylogenetic trees based on the sequence of one gene.[36] For example, given two distantly related bacteria that have exchanged a gene a phylogenetic tree including those species will show them to be closely related because that gene is the same even though most other genes are dissimilar. For this reason it is often ideal to use other information to infer robust phylogenies such as the presence or absence of genes or, more commonly, to include as wide a range of genes for phylogenetic analysis as possible.

For example, the most common gene to be used for constructing phylogenetic relationships in prokaryotes is the 16s rRNA gene since its sequences tend to be conserved among members with close phylogenetic distances, but variable enough that differences can be measured. However, in recent years it has also been argued that 16s rRNA genes can also be horizontally transferred. Although this may be infrequent the validity of 16s rRNA-constructed phylogenetic trees must be reevaluated.[citation needed]

Biologist Johann Peter Gogarten suggests "the original metaphor of a tree no longer fits the data from recent genome research" therefore "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes."[12] There exist several methods to infer such phylogenetic networks.

Using single genes as phylogenetic markers, it is difficult to trace organismal phylogeny in the presence of horizontal gene transfer. Combining the simple coalescence model of cladogenesis with rare HGT horizontal gene transfer events suggest there was no single most recent common ancestor that contained all of the genes ancestral to those shared among the three domains of life. Each contemporary molecule has its own history and traces back to an individual molecule cenancestor. However, these molecular ancestors were likely to be present in different organisms at different times."[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_transfer

http://www.esalenctr.org/display/confpage.cfm?confid=10&pageid=105&pgtype=1

http://xcelab.net/rm/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/common-ancestery-AIC-test-paper.pdf

This is talking about horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes and other microbes, and common ancestors of ancient (and i do mean ancient) times. This information doesnt really hold association to ERVs in mammals and more specifically, primates. If you would like to relate the two somehow, i would be more than happy to assist you, but i would need to know what you are working at. Also, your sources and the sources of those sources, from what i saw, were made by evolutionary biologists who accept evolution.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is talking about horizontal gene transfer among prokaryotes and other microbes, and common ancestors of ancient (and i do mean ancient) times. This information doesnt really hold association to ERVs in mammals and more specifically, primates. If you would like to relate the two somehow, i would be more than happy to assist you, but i would need to know what you are working at. Also, your sources and the sources of those sources, from what i saw, were made by evolutionary biologists who accept evolution.

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

Well, theres a difference between..."the universal ancestor" and the ancestor between us and primates. the universal ancestor was around a couple billion years ago, whereas apes and humans share theirs...maybe a few million years ago?

Theyre two very different fields of research, and...well, if you can relate the two by all means go ahead.

The articles, from what i understood, were referencing the ancient of ancients, and horizontal gene transfer....in...i guess the easiest way to describe it would just be to call it precambrian times.

evolution studies of these times, are far different from...post cambrian times. but...regardless. the article mentioned a "mosiac" instead of a "tree" of life, which is fine, but it really doesnt have anything to do with primates or mammals or even reptiles or amphibians etc. It also doesnt appear to be giving related info on ERVs, but rather appears to be non associated research.

Maybe there is something i am missing. feel free to explain.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt deny evolution , it is scientific theory

if every mutation is evolution then non should deny evolution but that's not what we are talking about are we? we are talking about the universal common ancestry , humans and chimps from same father and we are claiming that the mutations and the genome similarity in sequence is an evidence (evolution) of this kinship

ok, now that ive rested :P, let me try again.

Thanks for the post earlier, it was interesting reading it, ill probably read a bit more about it in a bit. Also, just as an edit for my last post, the common ancestor between chimps and other apes, wasnt a few million years old, i was thinking of some other hominid fossils. On that topic...

Theres a video though, it does a good job explaining hominids and their background a bit.

And a cool website with an, incomplete and yet still impressively built artificial tree of life.

http://tolweb.org/Terrestrial_Vertebrates/14952

this link starts it off at terrestrial vertebrates, so if youre interested in tree prior to that, ull have to back up.

Outside of that though, more on youre post yassameen. And dont get me wrong, i could very well be missing something, and if i am please let me know. But, the cladistics made based on archae pre cambrian extremophiles, i would assume is going to be far different from cladistics made around mammals and primates. And also...u know...it doest really hold relation to mammalian ERVs.

ok, thanks again.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just to continue to add on.

I know many people are familiar with the whole "fossil record". But i think, it would help to describe "geologic time", for better clarification of evolution in history.

Basically, and wikipedia does an ok job of ordering these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal

If you look at that link, at the upper right of the page, you'll see, "Animals Temporal range: ediacaran - recent"

And above that, you'll find a color coded bar with a bunch of random letters in it.

This is the geologic time scale, and what it shows in the link is, Animals are known to have existed in the ediacaran (630 – 542 million years ago) to the present (today).

With that said, the geologic record, and the fossil succession are made by geologists.

To further explain. The earth is in layers, kind of like a cake. The layers on the bottom of the cake are the oldest layers (the bottom must form first, otherwise how can the top layers be on top if there is nothing below them). This is called superposition. And it, along with a number of other geologic principals and concepts, allow us to date the ages of the layers of earth.

Once we know the ages of the rocks, then we know that the bones within them are the age of the rock theyre found in. And so, the fossil succession is created and added to, every time a new fossil is dug up.

So now im gonna break it down.

The first appearance of complex animals occurred in the ediacaran (600 million years ago, or 600 mya).

Fish were present around the ordovician (450 mya)

amphibians (~ 360 mya)

reptiles (~ 300 mya)

mammals (~ 200)

birds (~150)

and, lets say for example...fish and amphibians. everyone knows what a fish is, and amphibians are animals spend part of their life in water and part on land. Ok so, if evolution were true, if fish are in 450 mya strata and amphibians are in 400 mya strata, we would expect to find...part fish + part amphibian animals in between 450-370 million year old rocks. And we do,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik

And so, this is basically the order of the fossil record. Ill add more to this soon. And of course this is a really really basic explanation, but i think its important to note the order of fossils in the earth. If for example, a bird fossil could be found in 500 million year old rocks, evolution would be dissproven (assuming they were genuine and werent placed there artificially). And again, the phylogenetic tree made from this succession matches other trees.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just one last thing to add for now, i think its pretty interesting, so ill take a hot second to mention it. About the first complex life forms that appeared during the ediacaran, and the following animals of the cambrian explosion, these animals, being the first animals to be recognized in the fossil record, are recognized for certain reasons.

The very first organisms essentially were part of a major evolutionary arms race. It is the time in which the first exoskeletons and shells came about, along with the first compound eyes with calcite lenses. Major predators appeared etc.. These animals, being the first to really excell in evolution, had many wild and crazy body structures which i think is a fine indication of how evolution is not necessarily a ladder, but rather works in "random walks" or in, potentially unpredictable ways, when there is little natural pressure on them.

Also, i know this is a shia chat and all, so i think for those of you who hold interest in respective religions, perhaps this can be something to reflect on.

http://www.google.com/search?q=cambrian+exlosion&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1270&bih=633

heres a link to some pictures.

And some things to search in google...the ediacara biota and the cambrian explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now ill ask you, are they published in journals? Have you actually read any of them? And if so, which one would you like to discuss?

Basically, what i was saying is, from earlier, if you want to discuss the matter, please use peer reviewed research. So, if you have read them, and you have the publication and would like to discuss and/or debate, im here.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, now ill ask you, are they published in journals? Have you actually read any of them? And if so, which one would you like to discuss?

Basically, what i was saying is, from earlier, if you want to discuss the matter, please use peer reviewed research. So, if you have read them, and you have the publication and would like to discuss and/or debate, im here.

If you click on the links, they do mention the names of the journals that they are published in. I posted that link just to let people know that there are peer-reviewed published papers which tend to favour the legitimacy of ID (some have been written by ID theorists).

BTW I don't see why they have to be published in journals for you to accept them. If they make a good point then they are worth considering.

Unfortunately I personally wont be able to discuss much for the next few weeks. I am just too busy. Hopefully I will join in the discussion in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you click on the links, they do mention the names of the journals that they are published in. I posted that link just to let people know that there are peer-reviewed published papers which tend to favour the legitimacy of ID (some have been written by ID theorists).

BTW I don't see why they have to be published in journals for you to accept them. If they make a good point then they are worth considering.

Unfortunately I personally wont be able to discuss much for the next few weeks. I am just too busy. Hopefully I will join in the discussion in the future.

The thing about those papers is, often ID in the sense of what they support, isnt against evolution. i just would like to put that out there. Secondly, if you find a website that has anything religious in it, or anything political n it, or anything media related in it. The vast majority of the time, im talking 99% of the time, there will be false info in it. I dont care if its huran yahya or whatever his name is, or if its alex jones, or if its time magazine, or kent hovind, or if its whatever...trust me, there is a really good chance it has false info in it.

Only the peer reviewed published papers are made by the scientists, and its only the scientists who have any clue about this stuff beyond a highschool education. Im not saying guys like huran yahya are ignorant, im sure the man is brilliant when it comes to other things.

But one thing you absolutly do not want to do, is take the word of a non scientist, about science, at least not without examining his or her sources.

Thats why its important. I cant tell you how many times ive had a christian come up to me and tell me about scientific evidence for dinosaurs living 6000 years ago.

Now, i never said there werent papers on intelligent design (which 99% of which arent even against theistic evolution), what im saying is, if you have one, and you have read it and you think it does rebuke evolution. Then I will be more than happy to discuss it with you.

If you have not read them and do not know what theyre actually about, i would recommend not promoting them.

Edited by iSilurian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • What's interesting was that I expected this to be the moral consensus, with our scholars taking perhaps an even more rigid stance. This hasn't turned out to be the case. As @E.L King was mentioning earlier in the chatroom (correct me if I'm wrong), Sayyed al-Hakeem and as-Sistani both have issued rulings declaring gene editing to be halal in and of itself, even to the extent of it being used simply for vain purposes like increasing one's beauty.   EDIT: He's beat me to it.
    • hi i my opinion the hijab for women is because of men with illness in their hearts because the first Gate that Shaytan Temps men is from eye & seeing in men. https://www.aparat.com/v/PZit4   Hijab in the Qur'an    What links here ...  Hijab with Fatima Zahra  GG jurisprudential issues  Hijab  Culture > Theology > Religion > Shia > General > Quranic topics  (cached) Concept and dimensions of hijab in the Quran Purpose and philosophy of veil Eye veil Hijab in speech Behavioral Hijab Veil and chastity Elderly Women's Hijab Is hijab an obstacle to all social delinquency? See also: References:

      In the Holy Quran, there are more than ten verses about the veil and the sanctity of looking at the nonhuman . 
      One of these verses is verse 59 of the surah al-Ahzab: " Or Ilah al-Nabi al-Qarlazwuj and Benatk and Nas al-Momenin Iindenīn Alīān, Ibn al-Jadīn al- eqn-e-dān-e-yarfn-fla-yuzin and khanullah ghafūra rahima " (O Prophet, tell your women and daughters, To cover up, to be known and not to be offended, and Allah is All-Compassionate, Merciful.) 
      It means a national cover; that is, a woman must wear all her body so that she is protected as a gentle flower from the swordsmanship. 
      In Sura Noor, verse 31, too, a great deal of talk about hijab and honoring the unworthy look is spoken.  Concept and dimensions of hijab in the Quran The veil in the word means the barrier, curtain and cover. The use of this word is more than the meaning of the curtain. The word covers the concept that the curtain is a cover, but not every veil, but it is called the cover of the hijab through the back of the curtain. 
      The hijab, meaning ladies' Islamic cover, has two dimensions: a positive and negative one. The positive aspect of it, the necessity of covering the body and its diminutive dimension, is the forbiddenness of being revealed to the non-mahram; and these two dimensions should be together with each other so that Islamic veil can be realized; sometimes it may be the first dimension, but not the second dimension, in this case It can be said that Islamic hijab has been realized. 
      If, in the general sense, we call hijab any cover and impeding the receipt of sin, the hijab can have different types and different types. One kind of this veil is mental, intellectual, and spiritual; for example, belief in Islamic teachings, such as monotheism and prophecy, is one of the examples of the right veil, mental and spiritual, which can lead to sins and sins of mind and mind, such as infidelity And Shrek. 
      In addition, in the Qur'an, there are other types of hijab manifested in man's external behavior, such as hijab and cover in the eyes that men and women are advised in the face of the non-Mahram.  Purpose and philosophy of veil The main purpose of the ordinance of the laws in Islam is to God, which is obtained through the cultivation of self and piety:  إن أكرمكم عند الله أتقكم (حجرات; 13) is magnanimous and most honorable to you with God.
      - = ========================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================== 
      He is the God who raised among the people of Ammi (a people who did not know the reading and writing) a great prophet from the same people, to recite God's revelation to them, and purify them (from the ignorance of ignorance and ugly ethics), and the book of celibacy and wisdom In fact, before that, everyone was in a state of ignorance and misguidance. 
      The Holy Qur'an is used for the purpose of securing the divine commandment, the requirement of Islamic hijab, to achieve cultivation of the soul, purity, chastity, and purity. Verses like:  Let us convey the believers' eyes to the unworthy eyes and protect their bodies and their bodies, which is the best of their bodies and their purity.   Eye veil O my Apostle, tell the believing men to put their eyes in vain view.   قل للمؤمنات أضضضان من أبصارهن (نور; 31) Tell the messenger to the believing women to cover their eyes with an unwise look.   Hijab in speech Another type of hijab and cover of the Qur'an is the hijab of women's speech versus non-law:  Falla is a great deal of pain in your heart (parties; 32) So do not talk to men with thin, soft lips; lest you fall asleep (sickness and despair).   Behavioral Hijab Another type of hijab and cover of the Quran is the veil of women's behavior against the non-Islamic. It is instructed that women should not walk in ways that would attract unharmed attention by showing their ornaments.  And let our Lah al-Jahran be tempted to blow us away (Ibn. 31), and they should not foot to the ground to reveal the ankles and their hidden ornaments.
      Of the discussed topics, it is clearly used that the meaning of Islamic hijab is to cover and protect the coexistence of women with nonhuman men in different forms of behavior, such as how to cover, look, talk and walk. 
      Therefore, the veil and cover of a woman is also a constraint and an obstacle to nonhuman individuals who intend to infiltrate and capture the honor of others. There is also the same notion of banning and refusing the lexical roots of chastity;  Veil and chastity The two words "veil" and "chastity" are essentially the meaning of common denial and refusal. The difference between prohibiting and restraining hijab and chastity is the difference between appearance and inwardness; that is, the prohibition and inhibition in the veil is related to appearance, but the prohibition and inhibition in chastity is related to the inner and inner, because chastity is an internal state, However, given that the effect of appearance on the interior and the external impact on appearance is one of the general characteristics of man; therefore, between the veil and the apparent cover, and the chastity and inner restraint of man, is the effect and the mutual influence; so that whatever the veil and the covering The appearance and the better, this type of veil is more effective in enhancing and enhancing the inner and inner mood of chastity, and vice versa, the greater the inner and inner envy of the The veil will look better in the encounter with aliens.  Elderly Women's Hijab The Holy Quran has pointed to this impact in a subtle way. First, it allows elderly women to dress their clothes like a tent against a non-sanctuary without the intention of throwing themselves out, but ultimately says: "If they are sober, it even means clothes like tents." Not better.  And Al-Qawada'm Al-Nawa'ah Al-Naha'ah Al-Fayyid Allah Jinnah, the Prophet of Allah, the Exalted and the Most Merciful,
      In addition to the previous relationship, between the apparel cover and esoteric dignity, the relation between the sign and the sign holder is also; that is, the apparent hijab is a sign of a certain stage of esoteric dignity with the owner of the veil. Of course, this does not mean that every woman who wears a veil and a cover is necessarily of all levels of chastity.  Is hijab an obstacle to all social delinquency? Given this point of view, the answer to these forms and the doubts of those who, for the ineffectiveness of revealing the veil and the apparent cover, is to blame the offenses of some women with hijab, because the problem of these women, the weakness in the inner veil And the lack of strong faith and belief in the positive effects of hijab and apparent cover and has passed since the Islamic veil has a wide dimension, and one of its most important dimensions is the inner and inner veil of the person who faces sin and corruption , It enjoys inner convictions and faith; and, essentially, this veil of mind and ideology, as a foundation stone for other veils, including hijab and p It is apparent, because human thoughts and ideas form their behaviors. 
      Of course, just as hijab and overlays do not necessarily mean all chaos, chastity can not be imagined without observing the apparent cover. One can not deny a woman or a man who appears naked or half naked in public, because we said that the apparent cover is one of the signs and symbols of chastity, and between the amount of chastity and veil, the relationship of influence and affection There is mutual. Some consider the relationship of chastity and veil to be a kind of relationship between root and fruit; the veil, the fruit of chastity, and chastity are the roots of veil. Some people may have apparent veils, but they have not created extraneous chastity. This hijab is the only shell and appearance. On the other hand, people claim to be chastity, and they say, "I have a heart-warming heart, God works with hearts," they entertain themselves; such humans must, in their minds, have to point to the essential thing that is within the pure, external It will cleanse and never purify the heart, it will not induce the fruitless fruit of the wilderness.  See also: Hijab with Fatima Zahra  References: Interpretation books  https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdaneshnameh.roshd.ir%2Fmavara%2Fmavara-index.php%3Fpage%3D%D8%AD%D8%AC%D8%A7%D8%A8%2B%D8%AF%D8%B1%2B%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A2%D9%86%26SSOReturnPage%3DCheck%26Rand%3D0&edit-text= http://daneshnameh.roshd.ir/mavara/mavara-index.php?page=حجاب+در+قرآن&SSOReturnPage=Check&Rand=0
    • السؤال: في علم الهندسة الوراثية يدعي بعض العلماء أن باستطاعتهم تحسين الجنس البشري بواسطة التأثير على الجينات وذلك بـ:
      ١. رفع القبح في الشكل. 
      ٢. وضع مواصفات جميلة بديلة. 
      ٣. كلا الأمرين معاً. 
      فهل يجوزللعلماء أن يفعلوا ذلك؟ وهل يحق للمسلم أن يمكن الأطباء من تحسين جيناته الوراثية؟ الجواب: إذا لم يكن له مضاعفات جانبيّة، فلا مانع منه في حدِّ ذاته.  https://www.sistani.org/arabic/qa/02115/ It seems to me, based on the fatwa above, human genetic engineering/editing for the sake of removing ugliness or increasing beauty is halal in and of itself. Also, I don't know if this is relevant, Sayyed Al-Hakeem says human cloning is halal.
    • Just a quick reminder! One day Prophet Dawood (a.s.) came out of the house reciting the Zaboor. And when he recited the Zaboor, there was no mountain, no stone and no bird that did not join him in his recitation. Finally he reached a hill on top of which lived a worshipper named Hizqil. When this man heard the mountains, stones and birds reciting the Zaboor he understood that Prophet Dawood (a.s.) was approaching. Prophet Dawood (a.s.) said: O Hizqil, allow me also to join you on the hill. He replied: No. On being refused the permission Prophet Dawood (a.s.) began to weep. Allah, the Mighty and Sublime revealed to Hizqil to allow Prophet Dawood (a.s.) and to seek His forgiveness. So he held the hand of Prophet Dawood and brought him to the top. Prophet Dawood (a.s.) said: O Hizqil, do you ever feel like committing a sin? He replied: No. He asked: Do you ever feel desirous of worldly pleasures and vices? He said: Sometimes I feel the urge. He asked: Then what do you do? He said: I go into this cave and by looking at that which is in the cave I obtain lesson from it. So Prophet Dawood (a.s.) entered the cave and saw a throne made of iron on which was a skeleton, and an iron plate was attached to it. Dawood (a.s.) saw the following written on it: ‘I am Urwah bin Salam. I ruled for 1000 years, constructed 1000 cities, married 1000 times and the gist of my whole life is that today I have turned to dust. I am the diet of worms and insects. Thus one who sees me should not desire the world.’   Reference : Kamaluddin wa Tamamun Nemah Vol 1
    • As I said basic overview, many different age/level of understanding read these threads. So, basic overview for layman. His bio says Phd, in Chemistry. But again, not a scientific lecture. To provide overview of the issue,(one of the views out there) His personal understanding, http://usamaalatar.net/en/biography-2/
×