Evolution And Islam?

[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 2,099]

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 2,099]

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. 1,148]

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 1,672]

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. 1,148]

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 2,099]

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 2,099]

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.

[iDevonian 375]

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.

The environment doesnt produce the change. I dont know what documentaries youre watching, but there are multiple explanations for their evolution. Did your video not mention genetic drift? Also, they exist along side those they cant interbreed with. Its not really about ancestors.

So basically, i would reply by saying that you dont know what youre talking about.

[Ya Aba 3abdillah 1,672]

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

Well the principle/theory of evolution, funnily enough, also dates back to a single pair of humans, because the same evolutionary 'glitch' that lead to human species, didn't happen in multiple global regions which is why anthropologists generally tend to agree, based on genetic studies, that humans first originated and then migrated from Africa.

So yes, it is quite conceivable, and theological evidence that corresponds with scientific evidence suggests, that monkeys eventually became homo-sapiens, and that Allah (swt) chose the homo-sapien to implant the nafs into.

If you remove the nafs from your body, all that's left, essentially is carbon, the body rotts and returns to the earth (carbon), which some have explained why it's mustahab to do sujood on turab (dust) and why we do two rik'as, (from the dust (carbon) we came, and also symbolizing inna lillah (first rik'a) .... and to the dust we'll return, wa inna ilayhi raaji'oun (second rik'a) ), or what christians say "ashes to ashes, dust to dust".

Having said that, we can't fail to note also that the whole evolutionary process is controlled, in that, just like a ditch is carved in the land by a farmer and water is released, and the water follows the dug ditch, so too the evolutionary process. This is evident in that you don't see humans 'de-evolving', the word 'evolve' is really deceptive, simply because there's not scientific evidence that suggests any reasons why humans can't grow back a fur coat for instance, or their brains get smaller, etc. Though judging by some members on this forum, it might be difficult to argue that case in point :P

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

I'd like to sincerely thank iDevonian and KingPomba for considerably enhancing my understanding of the theory of Evolution. Even though i'm yet to accept some aspects of it, due to finding certain plot holes, you elucidated it very well. I took the time to read all your intricate explanations and challenges on this thread, as well as some on the other Evolution thread. It has certainly opened up my mind to new thoughts. I feel strangely revitalized.

I have two questions:

1. Most mammals have a penile bone. It is termed as the 'baculum'. It is absent in homosapiens, but present in other primates such as the ape, gorilla and chimpanzee. If human beings evolved from primate ancestors, through the process of natural selection, then how is it that a penis bone could be subjected to a process of 'de-evolving'? How did we lose this bone in our penis? Is this even possible? How could social or environmental factors provoke such a profound change?

2. Where does Adam and Eve truly fit within the framework of natural selection? Because, it is being insinuated that they slowly developed from a primordial state of being, whereas, on the other hand, scripture clearly depicts Adam and Eve with full intellect, to be able to distinguish right from wrong. That had a conscience. Anyone care to explain this?

Thanks.

[iDevonian 375]

I'd like to sincerely thank iDevonian and KingPomba for considerably enhancing my understanding of the theory of Evolution. Even though i'm yet to accept some aspects of it, due to finding certain plot holes, you elucidated it very well. I took the time to read all your intricate explanations and challenges on this thread, as well as some on the other Evolution thread. It has certainly opened up my mind to new thoughts. I feel strangely revitalized.

I have two questions:

1. Most mammals have a penile bone. It is termed as the 'baculum'. It is absent in homosapiens, but present in other primates such as the ape, gorilla and chimpanzee. If human beings evolved from primate ancestors, through the process of natural selection, then how is it that a penis bone could be subjected to a process of 'de-evolving'? How did we lose this bone in our penis? Is this even possible? How could social or environmental factors provoke such a profound change?

Well, theres no such thing as "de-evolving". The baculum also takes away from the actual experience of sex itself. It causes the animal to ejaculate quickly. Which in some cases can be good, however in the case of humanity, especially in current times. Thats not really a beneficial trait. I hope that makes sense. This is just what ive read years ago in some paper somewhere, and im a geologist on top of that, so for a more detailed answer, you should either google it, or go ask a biologist.

2. Where does Adam and Eve truly fit within the framework of natural selection? Because, it is being insinuated that they slowly developed from a primordial state of being, whereas, on the other hand, scripture clearly depicts Adam and Eve with full intellect, to be able to distinguish right from wrong. That had a conscience. Anyone care to explain this?

Thanks.

I dont believe in scriptural descriptions of things like this, so im just going to let that question go.

Also, if you have any other questions, or you feel there are "plot holes", then bring them up to us. I cant resolve an issue if you hide the issue from me.

[BillyJo 279]

Darwin's theory of evolution seems to convince people that species evolve over time to adapt to the environment etc. Now that does seem like a logical explanation and can be shown in us humans by our skin colors. Anyway Darwin said that we evolved from apes and scientists have found evidence to back this up such as Ardi's skeleton etc.

Then Islam says that Adam and Eve where the first humans and were sent down from HEAVEN. So this means that we cant have evolved from apes as Darwin states because Adam and Eve where the first humans.

But then again what hit me was the fact that if Adam and Eve where the first and only humans on the planet. So they reproduced and had kids. Now according to science if people who contain the same genes and reproduce they will form deformed babies. (There might be an explanation to this but I am not entirely sure).

So it goes on and I can't seem to find an explanation on what to believe in, both, or just Adam and Eve being the first humans.

Any detailed explanations would be great, and sorry if I made any wrong statements in my post.

The rest of the subject you got some answers the only part I would like to correct is in Shia Islam we believe that the children of Adam a.s didn't marry their sisters, one married an angel and the other married a jinn

[Pascal 176]

This thread certainly has gone massively offtopic dont we think? It started with the question of islam and evolution can be integrated or could co-exist, then it kind of went down the road to adam and eve, then a full on debate about the facts of evolution and whether they're true or false. That said, i'm obviously happy this thread gets some visibility.

For Çåá ÇáÈíÊ / ahlul-bayt: (1) I'm not going to pretend to know something i don't and i'm not afraid to admit it. I just simply don't know the answer at all here. When you get to certain levels of knowledge and education as im sure we all know, it remains extremely hard to be a generalist in everything, you tend to focus on certain things and specialise off. My main interest lies in the actual processes and mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, speciation, genetic drift, things like this) and how they occur and their impact in the modern day (conservation, medicine, ect) which ties in with the other things im academically interested in.

I know a few things related to that topic but it does get quite graphic and vivid, so, i think this is best something left up to you to look for.

Theres not really (as far as the level of knowledged needed here anyway) a such thing as "de-evolving". Evolution and natural selection always act to increase favourable traits and fitness. So, that loss isn't really a "de-evolution", its just evolution. We have an appendix for example, its very similar and probably almost the same organ a lot of herbivores need and use called the caecum. Its much much larger and active in herbivores, where as ours is kind of a shrivelled up stub if you compare it to herbivores. If you look at the picture where things are colored purple (http://www.talkorigi...html#background) you can see ours is small compared to animals that eat a lot of grass, leaves and other really hard to digest material. Plant matter is actually very hard to digest, most animals dont even digest it themselves. They have bacteria in their stomach that digest the cellulose in the plant matter and they get a lot of their energy and things from the bacteria to the point that one of my professors even thought we should think of cows as "bacterial farmers" rather than strictly animals that live off grass. Thats why a lot of herbivores, especially those who eat leaves (lots of cellulose) like koalas and sloths are incredibly slow, the energy is extremely hard to "unlock".

Apes are mostly herbivorous but we started to become more and more omnivorous and so, there was really no need to maintain a large caecum. It wasn't really selected in favour of anymore. I can't say if it was selected against, i suspect it was though, evolution tends to reduce the unnecessary and try to minimise energy consumption (we live in times of abundance now but for most of our history and for most animals food is fairly difficult to come by on a regular basis).

Losing our caecum wasn't really a "devolution" we didn't really need it as much anymore, it was just simply another evolutionary change.

(2) Someone took me up on my mitcohondrial eve idea and i was indeed wrong in places, i did a bucketload of research, i am still sifting through things, so to whoever that was, apologies.

The problem isn't adam and eve per se. I've probably beaten the dead horse a fair amount of time in this thread but i'll say it once more (for everyones benefit), science doesn't really have all that much to do with religion. Science isn't atheistic nor is it christian. Its secular. Religion doesn't come into play at all, it isn't a part of it.

The problem isnt the fact that God might of made two people called adam and eve. The problems lies with their off-spring.

As i said above, i went through a massive amount of stuff on the topic, it was very dense. All this is still on-going and i'll just give a few very quick points here. I poured through quranic sources, encyclopedias and tafsir to try find out how many children Adam had exactly and who mated with adams children. The best i could tell was it was somewhere between 5 and... 40,000.

As for the childrens mates, as far as i can tell from all the encylopedias on Islam i looked at it worked something like this. Cain and Abel were obviously adams children. They were apparently born with twin sisters at the time, so, Cain was born with TS1 (twin sister 1) and a little later (?) Abel was born along side TS2. Adam told/commanded/recommended/it just happened TS1 to "partner" with abel and TS2 to "partner" with cain. So, each got the others twin. Seth was also born at some point. As far as i can tell thats all thats actually written in the quran about the offspring of adam, i could be wrong. It doesn't exclude the possibility that he had other children though.

I also ran into a bunch of problems in trying to exactly establish just how long ago adam lived (if anyone could help with this that'd be great). As far as i can tell though, tracing back the lineage of muhammed (again more on this soon) it wasn't all that long ago. Theres no way all the variation we see today could come from a single couple in such a short time-span, nonwithstanding other questions like the possibility of genetic diseases or adams small (?) family all being wiped out by one disease or one animal attack or something.

As far as i can tell adam also knew how to use fire and had tools of metal (i forget which ones), he also knew how to farm straight away which messes with the lineages a bit. Humans didn't discover metal working for awhile..nor farming. We can tell from periods of time where humans were clearly hunter gatherers (we have isolated tribes around today which are still hunter gatherers and still haven't discovered fire for example. https://en.wikipedia...oldid=473213958 ). We can quite clearly see a progression in human society when these metals first came into use, when farming first came into uses, ect. I was trying to date adam on that but it was all over the place because theres a fairly large gap between humans comming into being, us being behaviourally modern practicing burial ect, us discovering metals, us farming, ect. All of which adam did during his life time apparently. So, unless his descendants simply forgot (hard to believe you'd forget something as useful as this), it creates a fairly large problem. So, that approach is out the window.

I found that muhammeds tribe was the "Banu Kinana", i also found a supposed lineage - "Kinanah ibn ("son of") Khuzaimah ibn Madrakah ibn Ilyas ( Elijah) ibn Madher ibn Nazar ibn Ma'ad ibn Adnan ibn Add ibn Send ^[5] ibn Napyot ^[6] ibn Ishmael ^[7][7][8] ibn Abraham ^[9][10][11] ibn Azar ^[12][13][14] (Terah) ibn Nahoor ^[15] ibn Srooj ^[16] ibn Ra'o ^[17] ibn Phaleg ^[18] ibn Aber ^[19] ibn Shaleh ^[20][21][22] ibn Arpheckshad ^[23] ibn Sam ^[24] ibn Noah ibn Lamek ^[25] ibn Motoshaleh ibn Edres (Enoch) ibn Yared ibn Mehlaiel ibn Qenan ibn Anosh ibn Sheeth ibn Adam " ( Using the family tree here as well - https://en.wikipedia...ree_of_Muhammad , https://en.wikipedia...oldid=460679335)

The quran doesn't provide life-times for all of these people but it remarkably mirrors the bible in almost all of these cases, so, we have to rely on biblical assumptions sometimes. I only count about 31 generations.

(I actually wrote a lot more after this section, but my computer shutdown, thankfully, the forum autosaved everything up untill this point, i can no longer remember exactly what i wrote and it did take a lot of effort so i'll be more brief here)

I found this family tree of muhammed:

I count 81 generations to muhammed.

We know the prophets were realtively long lived, as far as i can tell adam lived till just shy of 1000 years of age and he was the longest living prophet as far as i can tell. It decreases from there. The bible mentioned extensively the age of the prophets and as far as i could tell with a quick glance, they quite remarkable matched the ages given in the quran.

If you're a literalist, which if you're arguing for adam and eve you obviously are, they were the first humans. The very time we see humans appearing is about ~200 000 years ago from fossil, genetic and other evidence. Muhammed died in the year 632, we can use this as our rough guide. Muhammed lived 1380 years ago (2012-632=1380). We had 81 generations to muhammed over 200 000 years if you think adam and eve were the first humans, 81 generations from adam to muhammed. Humans first appeared 198 620 years before the death of muhammed (200 000 - 1380).

We divide the number of generations by time - 198 620/81 = 2542 years between generations. Adam was the longest lived prophet as far as i know at ~1000 years. This causes obvious problems. 2542 is an average, if any generation was less than 2542 (and we know it is), that means all the other generations have to be longer than 2542 to compensate for that lower number. I'll just leave this fact for you to ponder over.

Now, we have descendants of muhammed around today. I will try estimate the number of generations since muhammed. 1380 years passed since muhammeds death. I dont know at what age people related to muhammed on his generation first appeared. I'll add an extra 30 to the number to correct for this, so, 1410 years passed muhammed had relatives on the next generation (nephews ect).

I could get into complex estimates varying by time period and life expectancy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#Human_life_expectancy_patterns) over history but i won't. A generation is the time between a mothers first offspring and her daughters first offspring. Assuming people have babies around 15, thats 15+15 = 30. As far as i can tell from google 30 is a pretty good number for these purposes. So, 1410 since we had relatives of muhammed in the generation after him. Assuming we have one generation every 30 years as above, we get 47 generations since muhammed. So, we add 81+47, we get 128 modern desecendants of muhammed having 128 generations before themselves. I have to tell you, there is no way we can get the diversity we see now in something like 128 generations, non-withstanding the other objections i raised above.

Ignoring the bliblical prophets, i'll estimate the actual number of generations since the start of humanity. We have 200 000 years and a generation each 30 years. That is 6 667 generations on a very rough average estimate from us, to the first humans. Thats not double the amount i said above (128)...its not triple...its 52 times fold. This discrepancy is obviously a major problem. We would see a huge genetic difference between descendants of muhammed (128) generations and everyone else (6667) this isn't there. Yes, i guess i could add in adams generation, seths, maybe all the way up to noah but that still won't make much of a dint in the number 6667.

We could of course work in reverse, find out how long all the descendants of muhammed lived for and how long the bliblical prophets lived for, sum this together all the way back to adam. See where we end up and we should be able to tell how long ago adam lived. We could also simply times 81 (number of generations to muhammed 1380 years ago) times the average time for a generation (the time between a mothers first offspring and a daughters first offspring). 81 * 30, 2430 years is the number of years elapsed before muhammed according to this calculation. Adding in the time since muhammeds next of kin came about, we get 2430 + 1410 = 3840 years from adam, on a very rough basis. Christians who believe in the literality of the story have estimated adam to of lived about 6000 years ago. Theres nothing contriversial about these calculations really, i use the ages from christian and quranic sources.

We have extremely good evidence to believe humans originated at least 200 000 years ago. Compare this to my above figure of 3840, we get a gap of 196 160, thats an error of about 5000%. For comparison see this timeline - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory#Timeline .

In light of the facts i have presented the idea of a literal adam and eve becomes almost utterly indefensible without even resulting to all that much biology.

If you're a literalist, depends on your views of noah, we have to take into account the flood as well. Noah had something like...8 people on his ark i think according to islamic sources. One of his sons drowned but he had...3 other sons i think, their wives, him and his wife. We could quiet clearly see this bottleneck in human evolution and yet we don't to then have all the various ethnic groups as well come about from this flood (which you can backdate to being relatively recently) is also quiet absurd. I know a lot of muslims believe in a local flood but from my research the quran quiet clearly indicates it was a global flood (could be wrong though).

Worth a read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation#History_and_geographic_distribution / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_population_size / https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founder_effect

https://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/2009/02/02/fact-or-fiction-could-noahs-ark-really-have-happened/

http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/005799.html

http://paleo.cc/ce/ark-gene.htm (fairly good this one)

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/how-big-was-the-human-population-bottleneck-not-anything-close-to-2/ (this one is also very good)

http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/2010/08/20/after-adam-reading-genesis-in-an-age-of-evolutionary-science/ / http://www.asa3online.org/PSCF/2010/08/20/genesis-and-the-genome-genomics-evidence-for-human-ape-common-ancestry-and-ancestral-hominid-population-sizes/

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Adam-Bible-Doesnt-Origins/dp/158743315X/ref=zg_bs_12805_2 (this recent book i haven't read but it sounds ok)

To the person that answered some of my challenges, i assure you i'm working on a response but some of it has been covered here (not that you responded to all of my challenges, not do i expect you to but if even only one of them stands, it still inflicts a near fatal wound on creationism/adam and eve being literal because they are challenges against the fundamentals).

Theres really no good reason to not believe in evolution, the evidence is enormous, unless you have some desire to not stay up to date with modern science out of some percieved conflict. Furthermore, as i have illustrated in brief the idea of humans originating from only two people is also quite damaged. To me this shouldnt even be a debate but i have given evidence to all those that asked and i'm greatful many have actually read it and i've help to change their minds on the matter.

As for someone who was asking for evidence of marcoevolution, i've barely even heard of macro or micro evolution in academic circles (at least in the terms and ways you use it). You seem to be basing your ideas of evolution on old ideas or something someone came up with. There is no distinction between macro and mirco, evolution is evolution. You have genetics of an individual to the genetics of populations and species, you just scale it up. You might like to read this ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis ). Refer to the section i linked and also the "missuse" section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macroevolution&oldid=474723520#Macroevolution_and_the_modern_evolutionary_synthesis). The distinction you raise is a largely false one. I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evidence_of_common_descent&oldid=474256658 and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=474763991 if you wish. It seems some people are still so adamant on ignoring the very evidence i render when they ask for it..

I showed how we are related to apes using molecular genetics, that case is most definitely closed.

I actually came across a comic (on reddit, only been there once or twice, lucky find i guess) explaining what i was explaining about DNA but probably in a much easier way:

[iDevonian 375]

The rest of the subject you got some answers the only part I would like to correct is in Shia Islam we believe that the children of Adam a.s didn't marry their sisters, one married an angel and the other married a jinn

The stories just keep getting more and more interesting dont they :P. First they marry and have kids with eachother, then science says no no, that cant be right, Adam and Eve werent alone and there were many humans...we have their bones dont we? Sure we do. Then someone comes along and says, no no, its ok...Adam and Eve married an angel and Jinn respectively. With that said, there is no need to believe there were more humans along side Adam and Eve and there is no reason to believe that the genetic variation within our ancestors, came from proto ancestors. Why do humans have tailbones? Why do we get hickups and why do our wrists break so easily? Why do we get so many back problems, why do some of our organs and DNA appear to not have any value?

You can ask a multitude of questions about humanity, but only science can answer a certain large number of them. You will not know of these questions nor their answers unless you take a look into science itself. And if you simply choose to believe that Adam and Eve came from heaven and married an angel and jinn, then you will have your answer, and that will be your single simple answer for as long as you choose to believe it.

These are your options.

[iDevonian 375]

It appears that our competition has made a hasty retreat. shiaben, martyrdom, what say you? Observed speciation of the salamander.

[ShiaBen 946]

Again there has been no observed speciation of the salamanders. Have you or I directly seen them speciate?

We haven't. Just like we haven't seen human beings speciate.

[Martyrdom 2,099]

It appears that our competition has made a hasty retreat. shiaben, martyrdom, what say you? Observed speciation of the salamander.

I don't have blind faith if you physically show me humans evolved from apes or the salamander changing to completely different species I have no problem with that just because the majority say that the salamander did doesn't mean its a fact yet and if it is why is their still many studies being done on it. many scientist in the past thought they had evidence for something and later on it turned out wrong. How do u know this isn't different. Can u honestly say we have all the facts about the salamander case? Or All the facts about macro evolution period? For me to give you a definite answer about the salamander case I have to have all the facts or else its just my opinion now if you have all the facts about it feel free to present it I would be more then happy to look at it.

[iDevonian 375]

Again there has been no observed speciation of the salamanders. Have you or I directly seen them speciate?

We haven't. Just like we haven't seen human beings speciate.

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

speciation has been observed in labs and in nature. Im not sure why youre trying to deny this

Likewise mutations have been observed in labs and natural occurances of mutations have been observed in nature as well.

Earlier in this thread i asked the question. If we observe organisms mutating, what exactly stops these mutating organisms from speciating? The answer is, nothing. They do speciate, its been observed many times.

And for martyrdom, you want the facts? Here are the facts, your DNA and all DNA based organisms mutate. When you mutate, your dna sequences for varying proteins, your proteins determine your morphology. So when your DNA changes, you change. Thats all there is to it. Its simple, well established and visible with the naked eye.

Why do you think children look like their parents? its because they have the dna of their parents. ok so if your dna changes, you change. Its very simple, there are no tricks up my sleeve, no complex scientific explanations. Just one simple statement. Your DNA changes....and therefore you change.

Do you believe your DNA doesnt change? I dont understand how either of you are denying anything. This is well established, commonly known and understood material.

[ShiaBen 946]

I'm not talking about DNA, I'm talking about speciation.

You can't find two "species" of humans that are unable to interbreed.

[Inception 178]

Salam aleykom

Very interesting discussion although things have gone offtopic sometimes..

But my understanding here is that islam and evolution as long as it comes to nonhumans are not opposing each other, ok cool.

About humans, micro evolution (our genetics=minor mutations that woulnd't make us a new species) that is cool too.

macro evolution (Adam and Eve (as) coming from apes) that is NOT cool.

so, the question is what proof we have in that particular point? which we will never have since,

1 even in the theory of human evolution, the so called missing link is still missing, the direct "step" between the ancestor and the new age human being is not found, or this is what I know at least (and there was something about a missing link recently discovered in Norway I think but it showed to be falsified or something)

2 still no proof that Adam and Eve couldn't co-exist with other "humans" and only thier offsprings were the only fittest/survivials, and thats why they are our "father and mother".

Now, I just want to discuss the possibility for the latter, that they could co-exist. Why I think it could be possible (and would like to hear from you if it's possible, and everything is possible for Allah ÓÈÍÇäå æÊÚÇáì, so we discuss it for the purpose of just showing how possible it is, OK?? no fighting :)

So, Allah (swt) when HE created Adam the angels asked why to create something that will spread blood and opression and so on. So, here either Allah (swt) already told the angles what we humans are capable of doing, or that there was a creation similar to Adam (as) that already scared the angels. I'm thinking about neanderth. humans and that they had smaller brains adn were basically more primitive, so they behaved in an aggressive way. But Allah (swt) told the angels that they don't know, or they don't have enough knowledge for the purpose of creating Adam (as) so Adam (as) was something like the new era.

So, I'm thinking that in this case, we understadn that Adam (as) was the first in his "kind" and he will be the father of those who will survive, his children maybe married from "survived neanderth.", it's possible. What would be the "impossible" in this scenario for us to understand? Again, I don't panic in this issue since I know Allah (swt) can do the impossible, but it's still interesting to see the "evolution" of God's plans :)

cheers

[Çåá ÇáÈíÊ 330]

Why do humans have tailbones?

The tailbone is commonly thought of as the remnant of an actual tail, left over from a time before we evolved into humans. Some describe it as a "vestigial tail," meaning it has no real purpose in our bodies. However, it does serve as an attachment site for muscles and ligaments, which makes this a misnomer. There are several muscles that attach to the tailbone, including the gluteus maximus, the levator ani, the sphincter ani externis and the coccygeus. These muscles all play important roles in standing, bowel control and pelvic floor support.

Misconceptions:

The tailbone is not actually a tail, despite what its name implies. While it is true that occasionally a person is born with what appears to be a tail, these have nothing to do with the coccyx. In fact, these so-called tails do not contain any bones at all.

-----

Evolution Challenge:

Scientific Fact - Human Egg and Sperm Proves Evolution is Wrong?

The evolutionist ignores the problem surrounding the human female egg and the male sperm in the evolutionary theory. The female egg contains the X-chromosome and the male sperm contains either an X-chromosome for the reproduction of a male or a Y-chromosome for the reproduction of a female. The female eggs all develop within the ovaries while she is a baby (fetus) within her mother's womb. Evolutionists claim environmental factors cause small changes in the offspring in the evolutionary chain. However, the environmental experience of the female cannot change the chromosomes within her eggs and cannot have any effect upon her offspring. Her body cannot go into the eggs contained within her ovaries at her birth to make an intelligent change. Females cannot be a part of the evolutionary theory for these reasons.

How do you demystify this apparent enigma, evolutionists?

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Inception

If Allāh can create a living, thinking, loving human being from inanimate, dull, unmeaningful clay, do you think it is abhorrent to believe that He created a human being from a similar being, only with bigger brains and greater functions?

We seem to prefer that God leapt from a dense block of clay straight to a human form, with limbs and sinews, delicate vessels and branching nerves, carefully constructed skeleton, sophisticated eyes, etc, but flinch when somebody suggests that maybe, this process took millions and millions and millions of years, moving through various forms of life, every generation making new changes, fine tuning this clockwork, until we arrive at, more or less, the first proper candidate for an Adamic figure.

(wasalam)