Evolution And Islam?

[Love-Of-Islam 45]

(bismillah)

(salam)

I am Muslim, and I've read in Makārem Shīrāzī that - in his understanding - evolution of species and Qur'an do not contradict - although he has misgivings to extend this to human beings - but, if I remember correctly, he was prepared to still believe that physically humans could have evolved from other organisms, but that there was a qualitative leap when the "soul" was breathed. But I'm not sure of that last part; I just think I remember.

Apart from that, there is no doubt that the human body was fashioned out of physical matter (what the Qur'ān calls "clay"), bit by bit, over some period of time. If inanimate, unintelligent, unfeeling, boring piece of clay can become a living, thinking, loving, creative human being by the will of Allāh, then I'm sure there is no problem to believe that a living, feeling, even creative organism can become a human being. Obviously, there has to be some qualitative leap, and there is - humans are the only creatures with intelligent civilisation.

This versepart: لا تَبْدِيلَ لِخَلْقِ الله

"There is no alteration in the creation of God".

What does it mean?

Well, we can look and see what it does not mean:

- It does not mean that clay does not turn into human beings by the will of Allāh.

- It does not mean that sperm can fertilise an egg and develop into a human being.

- It does not mean that human beings cannot change through environmental changes (e.g. look at Chernobyl biths)

- It does not mean that human beings do not genetically change (e.g. how can a single-coloured Adam be the father of blacks, whites, reds and yellows, unless genetic change was possible?)

- It does not mean that a clay-bird cannot miraculously be breathed to life.

- It does not mean that living things can be brought out of water (Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, and We separated them and made from water every living thing?)

All this alchemy of the world, changing one substance to another, extracting new properties from old properties, is the miracle of nature, the signature of a creative God.

Evolution does not conflict with the Qur'ān.

Whether it's true or false for scientific reasons, it's another matter - but Qur'ānically, it doesn't appear to be false. Every day we see creation renewing itself, the rising of the sun and the moon and their setting, the tides and the floating plates of the earth, the gathering clouds, the blowing winds, the hailstorms and bouts of sleet and snow. Yet, it all happens upon the natural logic of order and harmony and law. Why shouldn't we suppose that this is how it has always been: the beginning of the world, the formation of the earth, the creation of the first living thing, the multiplication of organisms, the changes in climate and environment, the "first human" where a qualitative leap probably occurred, etc?

Of course, I am suggesting this - but I emphasise that before we make strong judgements from Qur'ān on Evolution, we must have a good grounding in the Qur'ān and a solid understanding of the claims of Evolution. Until then, we must suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

salaam

can i see in detail what Ay.shirazi said?

If u dont mind what is ur view on evolution and islam?

wsalaam

[Guest Jebreil]

salaam

can i see in detail what Ay.shirazi said?

If u dont mind what is ur view on evolution and islam?

wsalaam

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Love

The link in the previous post is a Fārsī wiki-article for Evolution, including a section for Evolution and Islām which offers 3 views: those who hold Evolution to be in conflict with the Qur'ān, those who hold Evolution to be supported by the Qur'ān, and those who hold Evolution and the Qur'ān to be reconcilable, but in various ways.

Makārem Shīrāzī's view is presented with its source in that article in which he believes that while the literal take of the Qur'ān does seem to suggest a creationist point of view on Ādam, however, this is not obvious; as for the creation of other creatures, the Qur'ān is silent on how it came about. He believes it is "clear as light" that there is no conflict between Evolution and the Qur'ān.

----

I agree wholeheartedly with the view of Makārem Shīrāzī outlined above.

What I think is relevant is that, if a huge majority of respectable scientists come to a conclusion after years of study and scrutiny, even if it is mistaken, it is wrong to dismiss them unless we have studied the science ourselves. They clearly have evidence, both rational and empirical. If we wish to make an opposite judgement, we should do some research, get some evidence and provide scientific arguments.

Also, we should not be afraid of science. True science illuminates the vaguer passages of our scriptures; it doesn't burn them. And while there are possibilities of scientists getting things wrong, we have to either study ourselves for making such an evaluation or we should suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

[Martyrdom 2,105]

Peace to all

I haven't read all the posts because I'm driving but I just want to clarify something real quick I don't know if someone did before me first Islam is opposed to Macro evolution not Micro evolution with that said we believe in it as a process but not as the origin of all things. Now as for the origin Islam does not believe Prophet Adam Peace Be Upon Him and Lady Eve kids mated with each other because Islam opposes Brother and sisters mating Allah(SWT) would never allow that and the truth doesn't change. So what happened? Well Islam says Allah(SWT) created Prophet Adam(AS) and Lady Eve in marriage then they had kids now here's the key what happened next is Allah (SWT) Created other people not related to Prophet Adam(AS) kids so they can mate with Prophet Adam(AS) kids in marriage of course because Islam opposes Illicit relationship outside marriage. Creating other people is easy for Allah(SWT) All he needs to do is say BE and its done look at Prophet Jesus Son Of Mary peace be upon them both. This is just a quick summary theirs a lot more details. Allah (SWT) knows best !

[Pascal 176]

Salam-How about the possibility that evolution, as we so far understand it, happened, but at the point where 'humans' finally develpoed the needed mental capacities and what not, it was at THAT point God 2 of them soul/spirit, thus creating Adam and Eve, the 'first humans'? This possibility allows for the explaination of the large numbers of humans present that would have allowed for a viable gene pool...Just a thought.

I'm interested in your idea, care to elaborate a little?

Are you suggesting (ill just make up a number here) that there were 10 000 humans around and God chose 2 of them (eg "adam" and "eve") to have modern kind of human cognition?

The problem is though a lot of things that make up our brain are genetic. We just dont aqcuire them.

So, even if adam and eve mated with the other 10 000 people, its not like they'd be anything like them.

I guess you could say God chose two pious favored people as his two chosen people and they went to mix on in the community but this is obviously a non-literal view.

In regards to Najib:

Walking is an instinctial, not a learned behaviour. That could be considered analogous to flying or swimming in birds and fish respectively. It goes through the same maturation process you describe as well.

You're seriously misguided if you expect non-believers to accept the authority of the quran or the hadith or take anything it says as true without proof. You can't just keep throwing random quran and hadith verses at people who don't believe in the authority of such things. Your effect on them will be 0... I read it the first couple times but now im just ignoring them. This isn't how arguments should be constructed. It's imperative to argue on premises your opponents accept otherwise they'll just simply say, wait, i don't buy or believe in that premise, i don't accept it. Your argument is killed.

And oh yeh for All Muslims out there: It IS either evolution theory OR the Quran. Whoever of these people tries to claim that these two go together is disbelieving in the Quran and is no Muslim anymore. Each single ayah in the Quran is Allah's Word and has to be taken as the complete truth. And YES Islam DOES encourage science..so don't tell me that please.

According to you and your interpretation but i find it almost arrogant that you think every other muslim here has to be bound by your interpretation that you have to choose between good science and your faith when you can have both.

SORRY, but I HAD TO LAUGH,,cause guess what: THe impossible happened!!!! :D A BLACK male and a BLACK female got a WHITE child with BLOND hair..there goes the theory: Throw it OUT of the Window :D

Do you really trust all you read in newspapers....especially an article about science...by a non-scientist...in a newspaper? Unless its published in a journal its hardly credible..

A lot of the newspapers said saddam had WMD's...how'd that turn out?

So, both parents had some kind of white ancestry and they had the genetics for it from previous generations. Mystery solved. I don't see what the big deal is. It's just like how red hair can skip a couple generations.

I was talking about two people who have pure african lineage with no admixture of white ancestry to give them white alleles hiding around in their DNA.

instead of the theories that don't have any ground....

I think we'll leave dealing with the quran to people who are sufficiently qualified and the science to the scientists. I'm a biologist, seriously, what better judge do you want on evolution? It's part of my profession. Its up to the scientists to decide what theory has scientific merit. I thought this was a simple enough concept..

Just like i've said, if you want to be treated you go to a doctor, if you want advice on law you go to a lawyer if you want a suit you go to a tailor but why is it suddenly different when it comes to science?

I am sick of you saying it is absolutely baseless and has no proof when iDevonian and I have provided numerous proofs, many times over. Have you simply decided to put your fingers in your ears and not listen? You keep calling it baseless or unproved and we keep providing proof.

Read one of the proofs i gave here - Tell me what you think and i will respond to your problems.

If you truely think it is the best theory (creationism) and has no holes in it then i invite you to answer all the problems i have with creationsim right here . Prove me wrong on each count then, i invite you to. I await your response.

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

Let me be frank in this post, because your tone is extremely rude.

First, I know some scholars reject Evolution, but also some scholars accept it and some scholars find no conflict between them - but you are not prepared to accept the latter 2 groups, and you think they "definitely didn't understand the verse and it's real meaning" and rather, they shouldn't "misguide people from Allah's way"!!

Moving on...

Either you are lying - or you can't read Fārsī, and so you're deceiving.

ناصر مکارم شیرازی: «

با این که بسیاری کوشش دارند میان این فرضیه [تکامل] و مسئله خداشناسی تضاد قائل شوند ... ولی امروزه برای ما روشن است که این دو با هم تضادی ندارند؛ یعنی ما چه فرضیه تکامل را قبول کنیم و چه... رد کنیم، در هر دو صورت می‌توانیم خداشناس باشیم... آیات قرآن هر چند مستقیما درصدد بیان مسئله تکامل یا ثبوت انواع نیست، ولی ظواهر آیات (البته درخصوص انسان) با مسئله خلقت مستقل سازگارتر است، هرچند کاملا صریح نیست. ظاهر آیات خلقت آدم، بیش‌تر روی خلقت مستقل دور می‌زند؛ اما در مورد سایر جانداران قرآن سکوت دارد.^[۲۳]

Source:

1. ↑ ناصر مکارم شیرازی و دیگران. «جلد ۱۴». در تفسیر نمونه. ذیل تفسیر آیات ۲۶ تا ۴۴ سوره حجر.
   

His tafsīr of verses 26-44 of ṣūra Hijr in Tafsīr Nemūne, Volume 14.

Translation:

Nāṣer Makārem Shīrāzī:

Despite the fact that many try to find conflict between this theory [of Evolution] and Believing in God ... but it is clear tas light for us today that these 2 are not in conflict. This means that, whether we accept or ... reject the theory, we can still be God-believers ... the verses of the Qur'ān even if they do not directly explain Evolution or Creationism of Species, but the literal reading of the Qur'ān (in regard to humans) is more consistent with Creationism, even though it is not completely obvious. The literal reading of the Qur'ān about the creation of Ādam revolves more around Creationism; but about other Species, the Qur'ān is silent.

Interesting conclusions:

1. Makārem Shīrāzī rejects the opinion of these people: Despite the fact that many try to find conflict between this theory [of Evolution] and Believing in God

2. Makārem Shīrāzī's own opinion: but it is clear tas light for us today that these 2 are not in conflict. This means that, whether we accept or ... reject the theory, we can still be God-believers

3. Makārem Shīrāzī believes that a literal reading suggests Creationism, but it's not completely obvious.

4. Makārem Shīrāzī believes that the Evolution of Species other than human beings is a possibility, because the Qur'ān is silent on that issue.

5. Makārem Shīrāzī finds that the literal reading of making of Ādam is "more consistent" with Creationism, which means that the literal reading of Ādam's making is "less consistent" with Evolution, but not in conflict.

6. From all of the above, we learn that Makārem Shīrāzī does not rule out the possibility of less literal, more figurative reading - just like Moṭahharī.

You can be sure that I know Fārsī very very well.

If you are young, have some humility.

(wasalam)

[kadhim 1,717]

SORRY, but I HAD TO LAUGH,,cause guess what: THe impossible happened!!!! :D A BLACK male and a BLACK female got a WHITE child with BLOND hair..there goes the theory: Throw it OUT of the Window :D

http://www.thesun.co...white-baby.html

yes they have tested their DNA and said the baby is REALLY theirs..no stolen baby reported!! lol.. AND GUESS WHAT! :D She's not an Albino :D

Prof Sykes said BOTH parents would have needed "some form of white ancestry" for a pale version of their genes to be passed on.

But he added: "The hair is extremely unusual. Even many blonde children don't have blonde hair like this at birth."

ALLAHO AKBAR!

So explain THIS before you elaborate any further with your science :) Please,,

It's not our science, it's everyone's science. It's science, period.

That process of looking at the world and learning from what it reveals that is described in that book you pretend to follow.

I'm not clear how in your confused mind you think this baby in England speaks to evolution one way or another.

Ironically, if the white pigmentation came about by a new mutation rather than from dormant partial white heritage, it's arguably a support for the concept of evolution.

So just to say you're a bit cracked.

[.InshAllah. 1,158]

1. For one, as i have shown in this thread (or perhaps another, cant really remember) all humans are related through a female and a male. This would imply an Adam and eve, except for the fact this man and this woman lived something like one hundred thousand years apart. This is an incontrovertible genetic study, the genetics don't lie. If you follow everyone’s fathers grandfathers, great grandfathers, great great great grandfathers...eventually you reach a point where everyone is descended from the same man. Exactly the same for females.

I explained this in some detail. There were obviously other humans around at this time and other females around at this time but for one reason or another all their lineages died out (not hard to imagine, killed/diseased/infertile/eventually one of their descendants didn’t have children/ect. I explain it at some length, can't remember exactly where but it was on these forums. If you feel the need try find it, if you can't I’ll do my best.

This is a hugely significant problem to the very fundamentals of that adam and eve were the first humans and were the only two around. This is one of the pillars of the idea if you want to be a literalist about it, unless you want to be interpretative but then, literally anything could stand to interpretation.

Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are not fixed individuals through time; rather, who they are depends on who is alive today. Mitochondrial Eve is just the most recent mother of all humans alive today. The same goes for Y chromosomal Adam who is the most recent father. If the population of humans alive today was different, then the most recent mother could have been someone else. During this (so called) Eve's time, there would have been other female humans. Likewise for the so called Adam. Therefore, mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are NOT the mother and father of the human race. For this reason, its unfortunate that they are referred to as Adam and Eve. It just ends up confusing lay people.

Let me explain further. Suppose that a disease wipes out every human apart from 2 humans - Mary and John. They then get married and have kids. Many generations later there is a sizeable human population on Earth. Who is the mitochondrial Eve of this population? Its Mary, as she is the most recent mother of the present human population. And John is the Y chromosomal Adam. A second question: Who is Mary and John's respective mitochondrial Eve and y chromosomal Adam? Its 2 different people. So we're not talking about the mother and father of the human race here. Consequently, its not challenge to thiests who believe that Adam and Eve are the father and mother of the human race. Noone claimed that they are the most recent father and mother of all present humans.

Edited January 28, 2012 by .InshAllah.

[.InshAllah. 1,158]

8. So, God is a perfect being. As a Muslim you must accept this. It is impossible for a perfect being to do anything imperfect. Every single thought, intention, and action that is set into motion also will be perfect since God knows everything, is all-powerful, and is perfect. It is impossible for God to willingly carry out any imperfect act.

Why are we not perfectly designed then? We have numerous flaws.

Firstly, its important to point out that this is all philosophy and not science. Science just tells us that there are blind spots and wisdom teeth, but says nothing about the philosophical implications of these structures for theism. Now onto perfection.

Whether or not we are perfect depends on the extent that we conform to God's design plan and motives. Suppose that I make a table. Is it a perfect table? Maybe. Is it a perfect door stop? No! But is the fact that its not a perfect door stop in any way a criticism of my creation? No, because I intended to create an object that served a particular purpose ie to support my cup of tea, not to keep the door open. The lesson from this is that in order to assess whether a particular creation is perfect or not, we need to know the purpose for its creation. If we misunderstand the purpose, we can end up viewing it as an imperfection because it doesnt fulfill what we wrongly took to be the reason for its existence.

So, in order to argue that there are imperfections in God's creation you have to show that your conception of perfection is accurate. For example, you have to show that the particular weaknesses in the human body that you identify do not serve their purpose for being there. If God wanted us to live forever and not suffer any physical pain, then yes we are imperfect because we get old and die, and in the process suffer. But this isnt what God wants; it isnt the purpose of creation.

Our eyes have a blind spot, all mammals do. Animals like octopus' don't though. In-fact, you can even do a little experiment and find your own blind spot using this page - https://en.wikipedia...oldid=468771340 .

This is an imperfection, it might be excusable if it was present in everything but other animals eyes in regards to the blind spot are obviously more perfect than ours.

The blind spot of each eye is compensated for by the other eye, so our visual field is unaffected. Secondly, the blind spot has saved lives. Doctors exam the blind spot in people with certain symptoms to rule out life threatening conditions like raised intracranial pressure (eg from a tumour). In these people, the optic nerve (which causes the blind spot) becomes blurred, alerting the doctor to a serious underlying medical problem that requires urgent treatment. The optic nerve also shows different changes in other diseases, and so is very useful in diagnosis

We have knees that are prone to dislocating, due to our nature of being bipedal and upright but not perfectly made we are prone to numerous back injuries.

Our spinal cord is such a vital part of our body and yet one simple break and you're entire body is useless, if it was perfectly made why not include much more protection?

Knee dislocations are very rare. Far more common are shoulder and elbow dislocations, so I dont know where you got that from. Regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all, but Islam is quite clear that illness and pain are part of Gods plan to give humans opportunties to grow spiritually, and also to compensate for sins.

We have wisdom teeth that erupt later on in life and yet we have insufficient room in our gums for these teeth, they push other teeth around, explain something like this?

If we were truly created by God none of these imperfections could be present unless you contend God is imperfect or able to produce flawed things.

This is mainly a problem for modern humans with our modern diets eg processed foods. Hundreds of years ago when our diet included foods that were more rough we didnt have this problem, as the foods would erode our teeth to make room for wisdom teeth. Maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows.

A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive.

Edited January 28, 2012 by .InshAllah.

[iDevonian 375]

Peace to all

I haven't read all the posts because I'm driving but I just want to clarify something real quick I don't know if someone did before me first Islam is opposed to Macro evolution not Micro evolution

Theres no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution.

With that said, the rest of this persons post can be disregarded.

[iDevonian 375]

Knee dislocations are very rare. Far more common are shoulder and elbow dislocations, so I dont know where you got that from. Regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all, but Islam is quite clear that illness and pain are part of Gods plan to give humans opportunties to grow spiritually, and also to compensate for sins.

This is mainly a problem for modern humans with our modern diets eg processed foods. Hundreds of years ago when our diet included foods that were more rough we didnt have this problem, as the foods would erode our teeth to make room for wisdom teeth. Maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows.

A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive.

Some of the answers are horrid lol.

"regardless, this along with the point about back pain is assuming that God woudlnt want us to endure illness or pain at all"

by the nature of this response, you could explain any and all imperfections with humanity. Thats a cop out based on an assumption.

"maybe we'd be better off physically if we returned to the more natural diets of the past. Who knows."

Actually, the jawbone itself has shrank over time, so even if we did change our diets, wed still have horrible teeth problems. Obviously this is because weve evolved.

"A final comment on this sort of philosophical objection from evolution. As a thiest, I expect to come across certain structures and processes for which I cant think of a plausible explanation. I expect this because there are so many structures and processes in the biological world, so of course I wont understand some of them! This is another reason I dont find these sorts of objections persuasive."

and another cop out.

[iDevonian 375]

Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are not fixed individuals through time; rather, who they are depends on who is alive today. Mitochondrial Eve is just the most recent mother of all humans alive today. The same goes for Y chromosomal Adam who is the most recent father. If the population of humans alive today was different, then the most recent mother could have been someone else. During this (so called) Eve's time, there would have been other female humans. Likewise for the so called Adam. Therefore, mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosomal Adam are NOT the mother and father of the human race. For this reason, its unfortunate that they are referred to as Adam and Eve. It just ends up confusing lay people.

Let me explain further. Suppose that a disease wipes out every human apart from 2 humans - Mary and John. They then get married and have kids. Many generations later there is a sizeable human population on Earth. Who is the mitochondrial Eve of this population? Its Mary, as she is the most recent mother of the present human population. And John is the Y chromosomal Adam. A second question: Who is Mary and John's respective mitochondrial Eve and y chromosomal Adam? Its 2 different people. So we're not talking about the mother and father of the human race here. Consequently, its not challenge to thiests who believe that Adam and Eve are the father and mother of the human race. Noone claimed that they are the most recent father and mother of all present humans.

And the problem with this response is, the further back you go, the less and less human you make of those ancestors.

yea...

[Martyrdom 2,105]

Theres no such thing as "macro" and "micro" evolution.

With that said, the rest of this persons post can be disregarded.

First of all just because you don't know something does not mean its not worth knowing I sense a lot anger from you for you to want a disregard someones post because you don't have an answer for it I didn't mean for the post to startle you that much. I can tell by your style that your not reading to understand but to criticize because for you to say theirs no macro and micro evolution amazes me you act like the internet doesn't exist were people can research it. So this is to clarify my post and bring the proof for the other members. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. The argument for Macro-evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. Theirs lot more but i feel like I'm explaining what 1+1 is so ill let people do the research and decide for themselves But again Islam Opposes Macro evolution because that's where prophet Adam(AS) comes in and not micro evolution and that's a fact you will never be able to change. By the way the second part of the post was not meant for you because it would be ignorant of me to expect you to believe what happened to Prophet Adam(AS) when you don't believe in him in the first place. Now if you want to discuss to understand your more then welcome if not then I find talking to you of little value.

Salaman

[iDevonian 375]

First of all just because you don't know something does not mean its not worth knowing I sense a lot anger from you for you to want a disregard someones post because you don't have an answer for it I didn't mean for the post to startle you that much. I can tell by your style that your not reading to understand but to criticize because for you to say theirs no macro and micro evolution amazes me you act like the internet doesn't exist were people can research it. So this is to clarify my post and bring the proof for the other members.

im not angry at all, just cutting to the chase. Thankyou for elaborating.

Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species.

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

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/11/speciation-in-action/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8751444

LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12015390

Nylonase phrame shift mutation

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/6585807

Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes

Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352

alright so, we have observed mutations within species, and one species evolving into another species. Therefore, based on your premises, we can conclude that we have observed "micro" and "macro evolution".

ok now that we have concluded what we know, lets see what you have to say about it.

Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science.

alright, thats a clear contradiction to what we have published and know.

secondly, why would an organism mutate within a species and somehow not be able to mutate into a new species? Answer me that. I bet you cant, because it doesnt make any sense.

The fossil records have zero transitional forms.

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

as a geologist who is published in paleontology, i say youre wrong.

[Martyrdom 2,105]

im not angry at all, just cutting to the chase. Thankyou for elaborating.

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Speciation

http://www.wired.com...tion-in-action/

http://www.talkorigi...speciation.html

CCR5 mutation which promotes HIV resistance in humans

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/8751444

LDL receptor protein mutation, and increased bone density in swedish families

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/12015390

Nylonase phrame shift mutation

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/6585807

Mutations within the Italian wall lizard which have brought about morphological changes

Vervust. B., Grbac. I., Damme. R., Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure, Nov 2007, Oikos, v. 116, p 1343-1352

alright so, we have observed mutations within species, and one species evolving into another species. Therefore, based on your premises, we can conclude that we have observed "micro" and "macro evolution".

ok now that we have concluded what we know, lets see what you have to say about it.

alright, thats a clear contradiction to what we have published and know.

secondly, why would an organism mutate within a species and somehow not be able to mutate into a new species? Answer me that. I bet you cant, because it doesnt make any sense.

http://en.wikipedia....itional_fossils

http://www.talkorigi...ansitional.html

http://www.transitionalfossils.com/

as a geologist who is published in paleontology, i say youre wrong.

You want to cut to the chase ill cut to the chase bottom line is proving what you said and converting everything that you said from a mere theory to an in indisputable scientific law should either take place by means of rational proof or by means of sense, tests and experiments - there exists no third alternative. At the same time I’m not saying that there is no room for rational proof with respect to some issues of evolution but on the other hand experimenting with connection to the issues whose roots existed millions of years in the past is something that’s not feasible. What we perceive by means of sense and experiments is that with the passage of time, as a result of mutation, superficial changes do take place within animals and plants. For example, from one breed of ordinary sheep suddenly a breed of sheep is born whose wool, in terms of softness and delicacy, varies greatly from that of ordinary sheep - this being the origin of a new breed of sheep by the name of merino, possessing these exceptional characteristics in their wool. Or animals, as a result of mutation, develop a change in the color of the eyes, nails or the structure of their skin - and other such changes. However, as yet, no one has ever witnessed a mutation that has caused an important alteration in the essential organs of the body of an animal, or transformed one species into another.

Thus, we can only speculate that successive mutations could, one day, possibly cause a change in the species of animals and, for example, transform a reptile into a bird. Nevertheless, this speculation is not a conclusive supposition but only one conjectural issue. This is because we have never encountered - neither by our sense nor by experiments - mutations that alter the essential organs of the body. So with that said you will never be able to take your theories beyond your theoretical concepts. It is for this reason that those who discuss these issues always refer to it as 'theory' of evolution of species, and never refer to it as a law or a rule. Also keep one thing in mind I know this is not our discussion but Even if we assume that the Theory of Evolution of Species is established, all it would do is to take the form of a scientific rule that has manifested for us a natural cause and effect phenomenon - one, which shall be no different from the cause-effect relationship existing in the animal world and between other entities. Are the discoveries of natural causes that lead to rainfall, the tides of the seas, or the earthquakes an impediment in acquiring awareness of God? Surely not! Similarly, the discovery of an evolutionary relationship between the various species does not create any obstacle in the way of developing the cognizance of God. Darwin himself, in the face of allegations of heresy, explicitly expresses in his book On The Origin of Species that 'As I accept the (theory of) evolution of species, I also believe in God; fundamentally, justifying and explaining evolution is not possible without (first) acknowledging the existence of God. So anyways like I told you before if your determined to have a discussion where ill you care about is who can prove the other person wrong then this discussion is over because I have discussions to learn I can care less who wins . One last thing Prophet Adam (as) is my father and the father of all prophets and that’s who we get our moral templates from. Who do you get your moral template from? Don’t get me wrong I’m not saying your immoral but that’s the problem with only believing in science and not looking at the whole picture is that it changes through time and if you get your moral template through science that means that your morals will change with time. And if you say I make my own morals who are you to say what’s good and bad for example if you come and tell someone lying is bad the person will say no I believe its good who’s to say who’s right. The society starts to crumble. That’s why we need in Ultimate moral template and who’s better to get it from our Creator and his prophets not apes. I didn’t intend to go of topic but oh well.

Salaman

[iDevonian 375]

However, as yet, no one has ever witnessed a mutation that has caused an important alteration in the essential organs of the body of an animal, or transformed one species into another.

so, what is your take on the observed speciation of ensatina salimander?

[.InshAllah. 1,158]

by the nature of this response, you could explain any and all imperfections with humanity. Thats a cop out based on an assumption.

Youve got things backwards. The fact that I can explain these 'imperfections' is proof that your argument isnt very good.

[iDevonian 375]

Youve got things backwards. The fact that I can explain these 'imperfections' is proof that your argument isnt very good.

Well lucky for me i didnt make the argument. But i did make an entire topic of my own arguments, and you as well as everyone else are free to respond to them.

http://www.shiachat....y-of-evolution/

however, if the tables were turned and it were your argument against evolution, then the shoe would be on the other foot. But perhaps pomba will actually take time to respond. I have no interest in fighting his battles unless theyre ones ive already faught or have interest in.

Also, if youre interested, and if youre not, thats fine. But if youre interested, and it applies to you, perhaps you could pick a side in the discussion between martyrdom and i. I think ive given him a fair question, but odds are he isnt going to be able to respond adequatly. Now he has either already figured that out and is doing some reading now, or he soon will. Or perhaps he will just make up some random response usin some Quran verses or something. We shall see.

Edited January 30, 2012 by iDevonian

[Ya Aba 3abdillah]

Nothing in evolution contradicts Islam. As previously pointed out several times on this forum already:

From Nahjul Balagha:

Description of the Creation of Adam

Allah collected from hard, soft, sweet and sour earth, clay which He dripped in water till it got pure, and kneaded it with moisture till it became gluey. From it He carved an image with curves, joints, limbs and segments. He solidified it till it dried up for a fixed time and a known duration. Then He blew into it out of His Spirit whereupon it took the pattern of a human being with mind that governs him, intelligence which he makes use of, limbs that serve him, organs that change his position, sagacity that differentiates between truth and untruth, tastes and smells, colours and species. He is a mixture of clays of different colours, cohesive materials, divergent contradictories and differing properties like heat, cold, softness and hardness.

A human being is made up of three parts, body (jism/jasad) soul (rooh) conscience (nafs). When the body ages and whithers, the conscience leaves it just as it entered it, and the good will see heaven:

[89:27] O nafs that art at rest!

[89:28] Return to your Lord, well-pleased (with him), well-pleasing (Him),

[89:29] So enter among My servants,

[89:30] And enter into My garden.

So who said that Allah (swt) couldn't have created life in such a way that it evolved, and when it reached a certain stage, Allah (swt) implanted the nafs into that (human) species? In fact, the nafs can be sent and put into any creature if Allah (swt) willed it. The nafs is what differentiates the homosapien from other species. If anything, the sermon from Imam Ali (as) explains just that very concept.

So all this talk that evolution (science) somehow contradicts Islam is nothing more than cow fodder, an attempt to make us lose our religion. In fact science complements religion, and if anything, works to strengthen faith.

ws

[.InshAllah. 1,158]

Well lucky for me i didnt make the argument. But i did make an entire topic of my own arguments, and you as well as everyone else are free to respond to them.

http://www.shiachat....y-of-evolution/

however, if the tables were turned and it were your argument against evolution, then the shoe would be on the other foot. But perhaps pomba will actually take time to respond. I have no interest in fighting his battles unless theyre ones ive already faught or have interest in.

Also, if youre interested, and if youre not, thats fine. But if youre interested, and it applies to you, perhaps you could pick a side in the discussion between martyrdom and i. I think ive given him a fair question, but odds are he isnt going to be able to respond adequatly. Now he has either already figured that out and is doing some reading now, or he soon will. Or perhaps he will just make up some random response usin some Quran verses or something. We shall see.

What Im interested in is the claim that evolution somehow disproves theism. This is what I was replying to here. Whether evolution is true is another topic, and it could be true to varying degrees. Im personally not sure to what extent it is true because I dont know enough. (Im not going to take scientists' word for it though because for too many of them evolution has to be true because God definitely doesnt exist)

[Martyrdom 2,105]

Also, if youre interested, and if youre not, thats fine. But if youre interested, and it applies to you, perhaps you could pick a side in the discussion between martyrdom and i. I think ive given him a fair question, but odds are he isnt going to be able to respond adequatly. Now he has either already figured that out and is doing some reading now, or he soon will. Or perhaps he will just make up some random response usin some Quran verses or something. We shall see.

None of the above your not the center of the universe and my life doesn’t revolve around this discussion so when I have time I respond. A believer is always busy. Now since you already predetermined that whatever answer I give you will not satisfy you then I’m wasting effort because if someone is an a deep sleep you can wake them up but if someone is pretending to be in a deep sleep how are you going to wake them up. Although I want to make one thing clear is that a good idea is a good idea regardless who says it and if I say something and you’re able to falsify it then that’s great you’re benefiting me. In Islam we don’t believe in blind faith. I’m not like atheists whom I’ve seen say you have to be an atheistic scientist to have any credibility which is a type of belief by the way. Now regarding this whole topic one of our most famous Muslim scholars Sheikh Tusi who developed a basic theory of evolution more than 600 years before Charles Darwin did. Research his books on evolution his knowledge is far more superior to mine when it comes to this issue. One idea I recall he said that God created the world, and that after creation occurred, the world developed on its own, while God supervises and guides this process. Many Muslims may disagree with him but In Islam evolution is discussed openly and by many scholars for thousands of years this is nothing new and there are many different views out there about it in the Muslim world that's one of the beauties about this religion. To conclude because no disrespect I feel like we’re going in circles but I’ll admit this discussion wasn’t a complete waste of my time I did benefit from it so I will end with this….

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (Albert Einstein)

“It's better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies” (Aurthur Calwell)

“Acquire wisdom and truth from whomever you can because even an apostate can have them but unless they are passed over to a faithful Muslim and become part of wisdom and truth that he possesses, they have a confused existence in the minds of apostates." (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

"You have been shown, if you only care to see; you have been advised if you care to take advantage of advice; you have been told if you care to listen to good counsels.” (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

[iDevonian 375]

None of the above your not the center of the universe and my life doesn’t revolve around this discussion so when I have time I respond. A believer is always busy. Now since you already predetermined that whatever answer I give you will not satisfy you then I’m wasting effort because if someone is an a deep sleep you can wake them up but if someone is pretending to be in a deep sleep how are you going to wake them up. Although I want to make one thing clear is that a good idea is a good idea regardless who says it and if I say something and you’re able to falsify it then that’s great you’re benefiting me. In Islam we don’t believe in blind faith. I’m not like atheists whom I’ve seen say you have to be an atheistic scientist to have any credibility which is a type of belief by the way. Now regarding this whole topic one of our most famous Muslim scholars Sheikh Tusi who developed a basic theory of evolution more than 600 years before Charles Darwin did. Research his books on evolution his knowledge is far more superior to mine when it comes to this issue. One idea I recall he said that God created the world, and that after creation occurred, the world developed on its own, while God supervises and guides this process. Many Muslims may disagree with him but In Islam evolution is discussed openly and by many scholars for thousands of years this is nothing new and there are many different views out there about it in the Muslim world that's one of the beauties about this religion. To conclude because no disrespect I feel like we’re going in circles but I’ll admit this discussion wasn’t a complete waste of my time I did benefit from it so I will end with this….

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (Albert Einstein)

“It's better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies” (Aurthur Calwell)

“Acquire wisdom and truth from whomever you can because even an apostate can have them but unless they are passed over to a faithful Muslim and become part of wisdom and truth that he possesses, they have a confused existence in the minds of apostates." (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

"You have been shown, if you only care to see; you have been advised if you care to take advantage of advice; you have been told if you care to listen to good counsels.” (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

I dont know what youre talking about, i just asked for your take on the salamander insatina's observed speciation. You appear to be doing exactly what i expected you to do.

Ill be waiting for a real response...

[Baka 100]

None of the above your not the center of the universe and my life doesn’t revolve around this discussion so when I have time I respond. A believer is always busy. Now since you already predetermined that whatever answer I give you will not satisfy you then I’m wasting effort because if someone is an a deep sleep you can wake them up but if someone is pretending to be in a deep sleep how are you going to wake them up. Although I want to make one thing clear is that a good idea is a good idea regardless who says it and if I say something and you’re able to falsify it then that’s great you’re benefiting me. In Islam we don’t believe in blind faith. I’m not like atheists whom I’ve seen say you have to be an atheistic scientist to have any credibility which is a type of belief by the way. Now regarding this whole topic one of our most famous Muslim scholars Sheikh Tusi who developed a basic theory of evolution more than 600 years before Charles Darwin did. Research his books on evolution his knowledge is far more superior to mine when it comes to this issue. One idea I recall he said that God created the world, and that after creation occurred, the world developed on its own, while God supervises and guides this process. Many Muslims may disagree with him but In Islam evolution is discussed openly and by many scholars for thousands of years this is nothing new and there are many different views out there about it in the Muslim world that's one of the beauties about this religion. To conclude because no disrespect I feel like we’re going in circles but I’ll admit this discussion wasn’t a complete waste of my time I did benefit from it so I will end with this….

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind” (Albert Einstein)

“It's better to be defeated on principle than to win on lies” (Aurthur Calwell)

“Acquire wisdom and truth from whomever you can because even an apostate can have them but unless they are passed over to a faithful Muslim and become part of wisdom and truth that he possesses, they have a confused existence in the minds of apostates." (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

"You have been shown, if you only care to see; you have been advised if you care to take advantage of advice; you have been told if you care to listen to good counsels.” (Amirul Mumineen Ali Ibn Abu Talib (as))

Are you talking about what had come to be known as the Mohammedan theory of evolution? I made a thread about it but got no replies.

[Martyrdom 2,105]

Are you talking about what had come to be known as the Mohammedan theory of evolution? I made a thread about it but got no replies.

Salam brother

I was just talking about what sheikh Tusi believes I'm not aware of Muhammaden theory of evolution ill look into it .

[Love-Of-Islam 45]

Nothing in evolution contradicts Islam. As previously pointed out several times on this forum already:

From Nahjul Balagha:

A human being is made up of three parts, body (jism/jasad) soul (rooh) conscience (nafs). When the body ages and whithers, the conscience leaves it just as it entered it, and the good will see heaven:

[89:27] O nafs that art at rest!

[89:28] Return to your Lord, well-pleased (with him), well-pleasing (Him),

[89:29] So enter among My servants,

[89:30] And enter into My garden.

So who said that Allah (swt) couldn't have created life in such a way that it evolved, and when it reached a certain stage, Allah (swt) implanted the nafs into that (human) species? In fact, the nafs can be sent and put into any creature if Allah (swt) willed it. The nafs is what differentiates the homosapien from other species. If anything, the sermon from Imam Ali (as) explains just that very concept.

So all this talk that evolution (science) somehow contradicts Islam is nothing more than cow fodder, an attempt to make us lose our religion. In fact science complements religion, and if anything, works to strengthen faith.

ws

(salam)

so when human evolved or took a shape of human from monkey then Allah put nafs into humans? can u explain imam ali (as) sermon in more detail?

Also 1 more question: if humans evolved from monkeys then Allah put nafs in human, so that means adam and eve were the only

(wasalam)

[ShiaBen 946]

You bring up the salamander case. The funny thing is, there's still no scientific explanation for why they allegedly "evolved". All these videos and documentaries just explain that their ancestors allegedly lived in one region, moved South and departed from each other in separate directions, then the different environments over time influenced them in a manner in which they can no longer interbreed because they're separate species. (Doesn't explain HOW the environments produced permanent effects, just says they happened).

Nobody directly saw these salamanders move or evolve in front of their naked eyes. This is all theory.

On top of that. You can't generalize speciation to human beings.

I'll believe in macroevolution the day where you find me two existing species of human beings living on these continents that are distantly isolated from one another, where they're no longer able to interbreed. If you can find me these "human species" perhaps I'll believe in macroevolution.