HassanShia

Evolution And Islam?

Rate this topic

214 posts in this topic

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

The caecum is on a different tangent here. Specifically, for what reason did it necessitate that we would no longer need a penile bone? The reasoning given is that we developed a mating system, but the whole process seems rather arbitrary in my view. The structure of our penis, as compared to primates, is alot larger in size in comparison to the relatively insignificant 10–20 mm structure of the primates. Not only that, but it would take some kind of intelligence for the environment to induce this change, it can't just randomly happen by chance. Environmental factors do not take the initiative to eventually transform the penile bone into blood pressure, a system

where a spongy tissue presses against a surrounding dense tissue, constricting the veins to preventing blood from leaving. The system is not the same and evolution can't create this. Furthermore, the exterior structure of the human penis is very different from that of the primates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 coming from apes) that is NOT cool.

It's not really up to you to decide whether its "cool" or not, especially if you're not a scientist with full understandings of these things.

Science isn't democratic and it shouldn't be democratic. That’s not how science works.

We don't sit around and vote for the answer we like best, we look at the evidence and find an answer that works the best, no matter how much we do or dont like it.

As a biologist i can confidently say the distinction you make between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a false one. Microevolution leads to macroevolution, as you call and use these terms anyway.

Just out of interest, even though your supposed theory is wrong, what do you define as a "minor mutation"? Where is the point where it becomes a "major mutation"? How do you decide which genes are minor and which ones are major or which type of mutations are minor or which are major? If you have two groups of the same species isolated in one way or another, these minor mutations eventually add up over time and the two groups of animals become distinct species. It’s a simple enough idea really.

Its also a fundamental concept that the individual doesnt evolve, its the species as a whole that does. Another fundamental concept is that evolution doesn't cause the change, things don't evolve and develop to meet the change, those traits already exist.

The medium ground finch is a seed eating bird that lives on the Galapagos Islands. In 1977, the population on an island called Daphne Major was about 1200. After a long period of drought, only 180 survived. Therefore, that is a deathrate of around 75%. Just for a second imagine if 75% of the human population died it’s quite a lot.

Some researchers (rosemary and peter grant) noticed that the finches that managed to survive had larger and deeper beaks than most of the finches in the population before the drought.

In the drought, small, soft seeds were very hard to find. The birds that fed on large, hard seeds had no problem finding food, these were still plentiful.

So, the finches that weren't able to eat the hard seeds died from starvation basically or got very ill or couldn’t reproduce or couldn't feed their children. Most of the finches left after the drought had longer and deeper beaks than the average finch in the pre-drought population. Remember, these were the same birds that were around a couple years before the drought, the very same. The individual finches didn't evolve, their beaks did not grow larger during the drought or anything like that. The proportion of birds with long and deep beaks increased over several generations, nothing happened to the actual bird itself. So as you see, the population evolved, not the bird.

We already had variation and difference before, larger and deeper beaks. Some selective pressure occurred (drought) and the birds with the longer and deeper beaks were "selected for" because they were more successful (fit) in obtaining food and reproducing. So, this variation between the individual finches resulted in an evolution of the population as a whole.

Say i got the original population of finches before the drought, some had long deep beaks, and some had short beaks. This variation has already come about through pre-existing means like natural mutations, genetic recombination, ect in the individual (you would call this microevolution). We have established there’s variation. I take this population of 1000 finches, i divide them into 2 populations with 500 each. It’s reasonable to assume both groups of 500 are similar in the distribution of variation. I buy a large plot of land and a 2 very large cages. I separate the two populations. Population 1 i feed only hard seed, population 2 i feed hard and soft seed.

Overtime, you will find, as on the island, the large and deeper beaks become more prevalent. The birds with the short and shallow beaks won’t be able to crack and eat the seed properly, they will either die, not be in good health from enough food, won’t be able to feed their offspring ect. This means they will have fewer children or none. Remember you get your traits from your parents. If the birds with the short and shallow beaks are having less children, there'll be less birds with short and shallow beaks in the next generation. The birds with the long and deep beaks will be just fine; they'll have plenty of children. Over generations, we'll see the population has more and more birds with large and deep beaks. Overtime, they will develop different mating calls, different patterns, ect. We'll reach a point where they no longer recognise each other’s mating call, aren't attracted to each other, have physical differences that prevent them from mating or something like this. They can't successful interbreed and they're quite clearly different, they become a different species as a result.

So, we see that variability and genetic differences (microevolution as you term it) is intimately linked to change in the population as a whole and eventual speciation (just like humans and apes speciating from a common ancestor).

Geographic isolation produces a certain kind of speciation called "allopatric speciation", which is just speciation based on geographical considerations. There are other kinds (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sympatric_speciation&oldid=474432660 for example). For another example about how microevolution implies and is the cause of macroevolution can be found when i talk about crabs at the bottom of the post i linked in the brackets after this sentence ().

You seem to demonstrate a poor understanding of biology when you state microevolution is the result of mutation in genes. Most variability in humans and indeed all animals isn't the result of random mutations. The rate of random mutations is about 1 in every 100 000 genes, per generation. That rate is very low, especially considering we only have something like 20-30 000 protein-coding genes.

I'd also like to point out, almost all mutations aren't passed along. You can broadly divide the cells into your body in two parts; you have somatic cells (derived from a greek word meaning "of/from the body") and sex cells or gametes. Your children (if you choose to have them) will get their DNA from your gametes. The vast majority of the cells in your body are obviously somatic cells, your eyes, your fingers, your skin, your heart, your liver, ect. Everything that is not your sperm or eggs is a somatic cell. If a random mutation occurs in the cells in your eyes or the cells in your heart, it isn't passed on. The only time a mutation is passed along is if it happens to occur in your gametes, which is even lower considering how many body cells (somatic cells) you have compared to how many gamete cells you have. Essentially, we can consider a male having 600 million gametes and about 50 trillion - 100 trillion somatic cells.

Let’s line those numbers up:

100 000 000 000 000

60 000 000

If you add 60 million to itself 1.6666666666666665×106 times (1 666 666) you will reach 100 trillion. So that’s... 60 000 000 + 60 000 000 +.....keep doing that 1 666 664 more times. So, the chance a mutation will happen in a gamete (remembering a new egg is used every month and sperm cells are produced on a daily basis) being passed on is very low compared to the chance it won’t be passed on since it occurred in a body cell.

Sexual reproduction by far produces most of the variation we see through a few methods, it doesn't produce new variation perse, it shuffles the existing variation. Just like a deck of cards, when you shuffle you don’t produce new cards but you do produce a different sequence of cards. This is why you don't have 100% the same genes as either parent, they are shuffled together. Crossing over (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_over) is one example.

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

I think it’s incredibly biased and rigid to argue we "will never have any proof...ever" when you can't possibly know that for a fact. You can't know if we'll discover proof tomorrow or not, you're essentially saying you've already made up your mind and you think there'll never be any proof or that you'll never believe in such proof.

On the contrary, we have volumes of proof, see my previous post (inc. comic) and this post here about the genetic evidence - .

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

Care to elaborate what exactly you think this missing link is and what it should look like or is it just some buzz word you picked up from the media and know next to nothing about?

Many people who bring this challenge just scream out Missing Link! like apes beating their chest (see how i slipped that joke in) Missing link! without even knowing what their talking about. A lot of them are quite insincere as well, most of these people i've talked to know next to nothing about genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, ect. They wouldn't even be able to identify the missing link they wanted if we did find it. Most of these people also haven't even taken steps to educate themselves on this matter, they wouldn't even be able to tell if it was a missing link or not. To me, this shows me that they don't genuinely care about finding the actual missing link or whether there is a missing link or not, it’s just a slogan they love to shout out while they go around doubting good science. I'm not saying this is you but most people who use this argument wouldn't know a missing link if it hit them in the face.

Fossils are nice but there seems to be some public perception fossils are all we have to prove evolution or the only acceptable form of proof when they are not.

We could prove evolution with hardly any fossils; see the above comic and my post about genomic evidence for example. I also went into detail about the whole macro/micro misconception and provided a fair few links in that post with an avalanche of evidence.

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".

Could i see some quranic proof for this assertion? Unless you're being non-literal, in that case why even hang on to Adam and Eve at all.

Even if you believe in Adam and eve, as i have shown above, this implies that the human race is only about 4000-6000 years old and only something like 80 generations when it quite clearly is neither of those things.

It's a wounded idea, there’s so many problems with it that the logical and intelligent person ought not to hold onto what clearly is an allegory and a story about creation, life, divine grace and a tale to explain the origin of man.

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 that already scared the angels. I'm thinking about neanderth. humans and that they had smaller brains adn were basically more primitive,

I thought you had a problem with a missing link between Homo sapiens and other apes but you go on to mention Neanderthals.

You may like to read these things https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_heidelbergensis&oldid=473551573 / https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Human_evolution&oldid=475385612 .

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

:no: Fundamental lack of understanding...of course you cant have two species of humans...Humans ARE a species..

Homo Sapiens

Genus Species

You might need to brush up on this - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biological_classification&oldid=474927328

We have other things that are very similar to us in the genus homo though such as

Homo Heidelbergensis

genus species

So, its an animal in the genus homo and the species is homo heidelbergenesis

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_heidelbergensis&oldid=473551573

A useful exercise might be to start on this page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frog , click one of the links under "suborder" in the box on the right. Keep clicking until you get to a specific species. This might help illustrate the concept. As you can see frogs in the same genus are closely related and share a common ancestor.

More than ample evidence in my other previous posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

:no: Please don't call us "evolutionists" like its some kind of ideology like "communist" or "socialist" or "stalinist" when all we're doing is practicing science. It makes me respect the person a lot less. Might i suggest biologist...or just..kingpomba?

This guys misunderstanding of evolution is so great it isn't funny.

I'll write it in bold, hell, ill even get a tattoo of it so people realise:

INDIVIDUALS DO NOT EVOLVE, SPECIES EVOLVE

See my above example (which just got approved i think) about the galapagos finches.

Evolution is the process of genetic change across a whole population via several mechanisms, natural selection is the most important one (we have other things like genetic drift).

Natural selection acts on the traits you are born with.

In my finch example (which was a real thing that actually happened, by the way) those finches were already born with long, deep beaks. They did not develop long deep beaks in response to hard seeds becomming the only source of food. The other birds were born with small beaks.

You can not pass along acquired variation (almost always)

You can only pass along variation you are born with more or less. All the other *changes* happen to your somatic cells (explained in previous post) and as i also explained, the genetic material from your somatic cells does not get passed along. It's sort of like saying, if i become a champion weight lifter, i'll pass along big muscles to my children. If i straighten my hair when its normally curly, i'll pass straight hair along to my children. If i get my arm cut off, my children will not have one arm. It doesn't work that way. This is a very old, pre-darwin idea called lemarckian evolution, the textbook this guy is learning off is very old....(probably didnt even use one obviously).

Natural selection selects for variation that is already present, it does not create new variation

Another example i guess, even though i already offered about 4. Cast your mind back to europe. Its the middle ages. The bubonic plague is rampant. Today, we are fairly sure it is caused by a bacteria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yersinia_pestis). What fixes bacterial infections (hopefully)? Antibiotics. In todays world we could simply take a pill. Antibiotics weren't discovered yet.

The plague swept through a lot of europe. Lots and lots of people died (i'm talking more than half of europe). The people who had always had the weakest immune systems or always had a natural vunerability to the plague were obviously in trouble now, basically, they're screwed (yes thats a medical term :shifty: ). We had people who naturally had very strong immune systems before the plague or had some kind of variation that made them more resistant to the plague. Guess which group of people died off far more often?

If your answer was the first group, you win your fantastic prize*. So, more of the first group died, go figure right? If they were sick all of the time during the plague and quite often died, they weren't having a lot of children. The people who are naturally resistant to it were healthier and obviously had more children. Their children were also resistant (remember you get your genes from your parents) so they went on to have more children. Remember, they suddenly didn't develop new genes for plague resistance, they were already there, just as they were moments after they were fertilised as an egg.

I know it sounds grotesque but it still operates today. If we left aids in africa alone for long enough, natural selection would eventually select people who are naturally resistant to aids in one way or another. They do not suddenly develop a resistance to it and pass it onto their children, otherwise it would be cured in a generation. You are born with this natural resistance and selected for it. I already talked sickle cell disease and how it provides protection from malaria. In the area where malaria is highest, we find the highest prevalence of sickle cell disease as well. One sickle cell allele Ss was selected for because it provides protection for malaria. You are already born with all your genes the way they (hopefully) are now. All that happened was more of the people who were resistant (Ss) lived longer and had more children, so in the next generation, you obviously have more people resistant to it. This only happens if there is a selective pressure though, in this case, the pressure was malaria, which is obviously bad.

If there is no pressure the population isn't going to suddenly trend towards everyone having Ss, since there is no selective pressure for it (except when it arises through totally different phenomenon not due to natural selection but these are rare, random, freak occurances [see genetic drift]).

To sum up again... the individual doesn't evolve. Your body doesn't really evolve. Giraffes don't have long nexts because they started small and kept streching them to reach..they were already born with long necks!.

*not good for actual prize :shifty:

=============================

=============================

=============================

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.

Yeah i dont really understand this either. So, people are totally fine that God created us directly but if he suddenly does it through the process of evolution...its disgusting? Even if he just did suddenly plonk us down (which as i've shown isn't possible unless you want to think we're only 4000 years old), we would still evolve and change now. You can't stop evolution, it always happens, the pressure of natural selection is always there. We see elephants being born with shorter, less attractive tusks now because of poaching for example. So, evolution was inevitable anyway, why not use it?

Things obviously aren't the way they are at the beginning of time. Time isn't static, nothing really is. We're inevitably heading towards the time of judgement so why is it such a bad idea that the naturalistic world moves in time as well?

You can still say God started off the whole process of evolution and started off life. He made the conditions right and allowed it. The God of the clock-maker i've heard this phrased a couple of times, God set up the initial conditions of the universe knowing everything else would spring from that. It doesn't sound all that bad to me personally.

The caecum is on a different tangent here. Specifically, for what reason did it necessitate that we would no longer need a penile bone?

No reason. Like i said, i'm not discussing this topic here, it can get quite graphic, lot more than is decent. You'll find plenty on google as i said anyway.

It was more targeting the idea that things can "de-evolve", nothing really de-evolves, it only evolves. Losing our caecum some people would call a de-evolution but its only really an evolution, a change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

I cant find two species of human that are unable to interbreed? Do you know how a human is defined? You just said that i dont know of two species of a species that are unable to interbreed. That question doesnt even make any sense, it demonstrates your missunderstanding of the subject. And not only that but youre ignoring the key points i made in my previous post.

If your DNA changes, so do you. Its that simple. Nothing else matters, its black and white. If your DNA changes, you change. Thats it, and you cant deny that. Now you may wonder, why arent there other species of homo living along side us...um hello? Neanderthals? Habilis, Erectus, Ergaster, yea all those guys, where are they? They went extinct! We still have their bones, and we have the bones of hundreds of thousands of other species of all sorts of animals that have gone extinct. Many of which, we have killed ourselves. I imagine youve heard of all the megafuana that used to live out here, theyre all dead now. Many of which were hunted and eaten by our ancestors as we evolved to a being with the greater ability to hunt and control the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

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

Its that easy, it takes 2 seconds to google. Its not hard. The fossils are here, theyre not fake, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. There have been literally camps of large numbers of ancient hominids that have been found. We arent talking about 1 or 2 skeletons, were talking about hundreds. This guy cant even name the fossils let alone call them out as fakes.

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 سبحانه وتعالى, 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

You guys are pulling at every straw, looking for every single possible option, besides the simplest one that is right here before you. Theres no need to entertain wild ideas about a man springing in full form from a puddle of mud, ripping his rib out of his chest and having it transform into a women. No...theres no need to believe that a human male and female mated with angels and jin (neither of which anyone here has ever seen nor knows anything about, and even if they did exist they arent even physically existent things that can have sex with humans). arent jinns made of smoke or something?

Why are people tossing around these wild ideas about people having babies with clouds of smoke? Why not just say, hey...my DNA changes, i can see that, that means that I change too, and i can see that too when i see that parents have children who look different from them. Its that easy. And look! I even have hundreds of fossils of ancient humans that look almost like me but not quite, so reasonably they probably evolved.

Its that easy guys. go read about this stuff, go read about the fossils on wikipedia or something. Go read about mutations. talkorigins is a good website that could help, go check it out, google it. Use youtube if you have to. DonExodus2 has plenty of educational videos. Do something, because this is embarassing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I never called our tailbone vestigial, so with that, your entire statement is a waste of time. The point is, we have a tail bone. And i see you cleverly ignored all of my other questions, which were mere rhetoric to begin with because quite frankly i could care less if you could tell me the scientific name for our tailbone or not.

And ty Pomba for answering his so called "challange". Id waste my time responding in detail if i had some, but right now i dont.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Im sorry, let me try being a bit nicer. its been a long day. Um...please dont challange me if you...im trying to be nice about this. If you want to challange me or any establishment, know what youre talking about, and bring real arguments. Statements like this one just...eh...they dont do anything for anyone. There are plenty of species of homo that have existed and they could not interbreed. You can google them, they are all dead now, we have their bones. But i think you know this, which is why the question is just useless to both of us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

If you want a mature, serious discussion, be more respectful:

Anyhow, I'm giving a guess, and assuming you know Fārsī:

http://fa.wikipedia....%A7%D9%85%D9%84

Check the bit about "Evolution and Islām", then check those who accept Evolution, those who reject it, and those who suspend judgement because of what they see to be lack of evidence - the actual sources can be found cited at the bottom of the Wiki-article.

Please be more careful before giving out heavy fatwās, unless you happen to be a mufassir of the Qur'ān or a scientist on Evolution. Given the lack of religious consensus on this issue, and given the stronger scientific consensus for Evolution, I would suggest, at the very least, to suspend judgement.

(wasalam)

Just to get back to the discussion about Shirazi who has said that evolution is not in conflict with religion, I have ASKED him, and I have NOT QUOTED Wikipedia. Cause anyone can alter wikipedia as we all know, so whoever quotes wikipedia is unreliable. So now that there is NO scholar left that says the theory of evolution COULD be right, then I guess I go back to what I said: It IS either believing in evolution or believing in the Quran which is the final Word of Allah and His Last Messenger (pbuh). I quote Shirazi and anyone else can ask him the same question if you don't believe the following:

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.

My question is regarding evolution. Someone on a forum claims that you said that evolution is not against the Quran and it is possible. Then COULD it be true that we evolved from monkeys and /or is it possible that other species have evolved from time to time? Does that not go against the 'Be and it is (kon fayakoen)? Or Surah Rum Ayah 30: There is no alteration in Allah's creation? Please reply to me as fast as possible, because these answers are done in your name.

Wassalam

Dear questioner:

Answer: This ascription to his eminence is not correct and the theory of evolution is false.

May God bless you with health and happiness

Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi Office / Estefta’aat Section

So I sincerely want to ask Jebreil not to say things like that in the future without first collecting some real evidence as some people may believe you who are naive enough to do so. So now there are NO ayatollah's left who say that theory of evolution COULD be true..sorry.Moreover, I want to add some English speaking video's for you guys to watch. It's from Dr. Sahafi:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TruthSeeker12th#p/u/147/WI7qnEIsQKw

He literally says that the theory of evolution cannot answer this and this is proof that the theory if as false as could be. So whoever does not like to watch the video's because too lazy or whatever, then tell me and I will type it out for you..nice of me right? BUT, the video SHOWS everything so it is not really a good idea to type it out, otherwise I would've done so already. IT'S REALLY AMAZING - THE VIDEO'S..hope Kingpomba takes like 10 minutes time to watch one video and see if he can argument against it..I really want to know if there are arguments against it, so that I can see both sides of the story. Thanks in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.

If you are young, have some humility.

(wasalam)

So again I quote that what you said here, which is a lie and an invention by someone who posted it on Wikipedia. You have an obligation to find out whether it's true or not and again I state here that Makarem Shirazi His Eminence said:

Dear questioner:

Answer:This ascription to his eminence is not correct and the theory of evolution is false.

May God bless you with health and happiness

Grand Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi Office / Estefta’aat Section

Just to make sure..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.youtube.c...147/WI7qnEIsQKw

He literally says that the theory of evolution cannot answer this and this is proof that the theory if as false as could be. So whoever does not like to watch the video's because too lazy or whatever, then tell me and I will type it out for you..nice of me right? BUT, the video SHOWS everything so it is not really a good idea to type it out, otherwise I would've done so already. IT'S REALLY AMAZING - THE VIDEO'S..hope Kingpomba takes like 10 minutes time to watch one video and see if he can argument against it..I really want to know if there are arguments against it, so that I can see both sides of the story. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for the video, just a couple quick points.

1) What is Dr.Shafi a doctor in...exactly? He could have a doctorate in 13th century art for all we know, i'd like to know this information.

2) Big red flag, he used the word "evolutionist", it already indicates he is biased and not scientific...again like i said above, its equating it with things like socialism or communism or other isms. People who believe in evolution and study it are called scientists... not evolutionists.

3) There is absolutely nothing in this video that disproves evolution...he just talked about butterflies for awhile? Can you point to the specific facts you believe disprove evolution? Or did you just take his word for it when he said "this disproves it" and didn't do much thinking, which is ok, we all make mistakes but its kind of hard to argue off that basis..

4) A larva is just the juvenile form of the animal. A process is analogous in humans to the developing fetus. I was lucky enough to get a quite broad knowledge of a lot of biological concepts before i specialised down. The larva is just the juvenile form, it later develops into a butterfly. Look at the human embryo, it clearly doesn't look like a baby at the start, it develops in the same way the caterpillar does, the only difference is you can see the caterpillar developing.

allStagesButtons.gif

The process in butterflies is called metamorphosis, you can read more about it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamorphosis . Its quite common among insects.

The butterfly is the same animal as the caterpillar. The caterpillar is just the juvenile stage. We see this in tadpoles for example.

Again, he just talked about butterflies for a little...he didn't make very many concrete statements. If you have a particular thing that seemed concrete to you personally could you point it out?

Lots of animals also don't consume food or water for long periods, hibernating animals for example. I've also been lucky enough to come up very close to a little animal called a kangaroo mouse, it can go its whole life without drinking. The process of making energy in your body also produces water, this is how it gets its water (in addition to the very little moisture contained in solid food).

I can talk a bit about how they migrate and how they know where to go but now we're getting very off topic.

The point of the matter is this, we have so so much evidence in favor of evolution, proving it. It is a fact. It happens. So, when we find some kind of problem or issue (the video didnt even present one of these) its not that we throw the entire theory of evolution with a very good basis out the window, we try to figure out how we understand the problem within the framework of evolution.

Newtons laws for example, i heard this story awhile ago so its very fuzzy. It didn't predict the movements of Jupiter correctly. To some this would indicate a problem with the theory but newtons theory had a very good basis in evidence. The scientists didn't throw newtons theory out the window, in-fact, later they discovered there was another (at that time) undiscovered planet around jupiter that was causing the problems and they predicted this using newtons laws as well. So, if you find one or two little things we can't explain using evolutionary biology its not at all a wound on the theory, there is so much evidence in favor of it and its predicted and fitted so many things its incontrovertible.

If you're trying to argue against it by showing the odd one or two things we don't understand just yet, this argument wont work. Because i can show you the million or so pieces of evidence that prove it does work. Science is about progress, its not static dogma like the quran or the bible. I'd frankly be alarmed if there weren't any problems or unsolved questions because that means theres no progress left to make. There was progress to be made ever since the theory came into being. Darwin knew variation was linked to evolution and variation was passed along but he did not know how this occurred. Its only later with the discovery of genes that we found out how this can happen. So, progress has been made and will continue to be made.

I guess the best argument you could make is to not point out how the certain odd thing does not fit into it but by challenging the idea as a whole but as i've shown, theres more than enough evidence that evolution occurs.

The best a theist can do is really find some way just to accept it. You can still say God started off life or tuned the universe, sort of like winding a clock, at the very start to make everything as it is now. To make everything unfold as it is now. The Vatican accepts evolution, so does the bishop of the Anglican church and these are very serious and smart theologians in addition to obviously being very strong believers in God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clergy_Letter_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution might be useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the video, just a couple quick points.

Again, he just talked about butterflies for a little...he didn't make very many concrete statements. If you have a particular thing that seemed concrete to you personally could you point it out?

The best a theist can do is really find some way just to accept it. You can still say God started off life or tuned the universe, sort of like winding a clock, at the very start to make everything as it is now. To make everything unfold as it is now. The Vatican accepts evolution, so does the bishop of the Anglican church and these are very serious and smart theologians in addition to obviously being very strong believers in God.

I actually wanted to upload the other video about the bees, but I don't know why only this one is uploaded :S..cause I gave two links.

To me it is evident that the embryo develops in the mother's belly, because those are the stages that it has to pass before becoming a full grown baby (perfect or unperfect in shape). However, the butterfly is BORN first and then develops. That is something totally different. If you want to compare those two, then of course the butterfly should develop itself after being an egg -> to a larva -> to a butterfly in the belly or whatever of the previous motherbutterfly.

Or the human should 'evolve' after being born into something else, which is clearly not the case. So I don't find your argument very strong sorry. But here is the actualy video I wanted to show:

Furthermore, calling the Quran a static dogma is not going to help you convince me. Allah, the Creator, has perfect knowledge of everything He created and therefore He knows the hidden and unhidden. Also, the Qur'an being a perfect Book, it is only clear evidence that it should not change. If it needed change, it would mean imperfection. The Qur'an is far from errors unlike any other book which has been published so far or any theory.

About your last statement, no there is no way in believing either two of theories. The Vatican also doesn't say anything against the mistreatment by it's men and what it did to children. So giving the example of the vatican doesn't sound nice to me..I don't like them really. They should've at least stepped up against the mistreatment. Also them saying evolution is OK, still doesn't argue against the Quran as a perfect Book and Muslims saying evolution is wrong..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, the butterfly is BORN first and then develops.

What do you mean a butterfly is...born? Are you familiar with the life cycle of a butterfly?

I think some of the confusion results from the fact that people commonly call the thing with wings and bright colors a butterfly. Its the problem with our language, its still the same animal all throughout its life cycle. We'll call it Danaus plexippus which is its scientific name. The animal Danaus plexippus goes through several life stages, a caterpillar - the juvenile stage then into a pupal form where it metamorphoses into the adult stage, commonly called a butterfly. It's still the same species though, its still Danaus plexippus just in different stages of its life cycle. One eats leaves and walks on "feet", the other doesn't eat and has wings but these are just stages in the life cycle of the same animal, Danaus plexippus .

Bflylifecyclebw.GIF

This might help.

That is something totally different. If you want to compare those two, then of course the butterfly should develop itself after being an egg -> to a larva -> to a butterfly in the belly or whatever of the previous motherbutterfly.

The...the belly? Precisely how much do you know about biology...you realise babies dont reside in stomachs right? Human babies are located inside the uterus and the offspring of insects usually resides in eggs external from the insect.

Also you must realise almost all insect mate using external fertilisation, they lay eggs. The larva or the eggs do not develop from the parental butterfly, they develop external from it. Humans have internal fertilisation where the juvenile develops inside the parent.

Another important about insect reproduction is the concept of oviparity.

Or the human should 'evolve' after being born into something else

That has...nothing to do with evolution...do you understand what evolution is? If you're a little confused you might want to read back a bit. The individual does not evolve, the species evolves.

I dont understand why you think a human should spontaneously transform into another animal? Can you please explain why using scientific principals? It'd be a great party trick and all but i'm not quite sure where you got this idea from...no animal just spontaneously transforms into another animal after birth...sounds closer to magic to me, might want to consult a wizard.

Again, the butterfly and the caterpillar are the same animal...they're not different animals. The caterpillar is the juvenile or larval form of the butterfly. Just like the tadpole is the juvenile form of a frog. A tadpole and a frog are the same animal, they're just in different stages of the life cycle of the animal. They dont change to...other animals...they're the same animal. Just a different part of the life cycle.

I watched about 5 minutes of the video and gave up, it seemed like the last video. In the last video he was just talking about butterflies but said nothing that really challenged evolution. I mean it was a so so documentary about butterflies but nothing to do with evolution... It seemed the same with the bee one.

I found this in an old textbook if you're interested in the bees though:

beedance.png

Furthermore, calling the Quran a static dogma is not going to help you convince me.

Who says i want to convince you? You're not a scientist or a significant public figure, i really care little if you believe in good evidence based science or not, especially if one is being stubborn about it or not even genuinely seeking alternative views or evidence. If i went around trying to convince everyone who didn't believe i'd have no time left to do other things. Long as you dont run around trying to force schools to teach creationism or burning books or something i really dont have any beef with you. I answered a question, thats all.

The quran should be static, it isnt an insult. Morals should be static, if morals were constantly changing i'd be a little alarmed. Science shouldn't be static though, i'd be a bit alarmed if we never made any progress. I was just highlighting the distinction that science isn't static, we find problems, we fix them and we move on.

If you want to argue even one shred over the quran though i most definitely wont engage you, this is about evolution. If you want to run around screaming how great the quran is thats great but dont do it right in my face when i haven't asked you to tell me anything about the quran. You have the freedom to tell the world how much you love Islam of course but people also have the freedom not to be shouted at and the freedom not to listen. Apologies if my tone sounds a little harsh but this is spiraling into irrelevance and pettiness just like last time, i can see exactly the same thing unfolding and i don't want it to happen again.

So...(some) muslims say evolution is wrong....so what? Science is not democratic, i dont really care what they or the majority of the public think.

Just because lots of people believe something or demand something does not make it right ( https://en.wikipedia...oldid=463445795 ). In switzerland for example, they have very powerful democractic systems. If you get enough people together you can propose a bill be made into law. Its subject to a vote and enough people vote for it, it becomes a law. Look what happened ( https://en.wikipedia...oldid=472837959 ). Just because lots of people believe it, it says nothing about the qualities of an idea. There was a time where lots of people thought mental illness was caused by evil spirits or everyone believed in all kinds of wacky cures, doesn't mean they were right, unless they have proof. Science isn't democratic. It doesn't matter what your supposed group of muslims think, we're not going to change what we know based on facts, to fit the reality they believe they're in.

Scientists dont sit around and choose which theory we like best or form some secret cabal to undermine religion (by the way guys the secret cabal meeting is moved to Tuesday, bring some food), i dont know what you think scientists do all day but we dont spend it trying to figure out ways to brainwash everyone into atheism or anything like that. I'll say it once again, science is secular, religion or lack of religion plays no part in the professional practice of science. We just go where the evidence tells us we should go and the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of evolution, there are no two ways about it.

If you've already made up your mind and hardened your position and don't genuinely want to learn, thats your choice. However, whats not ok is wasting my time by going on some crusade against evolution and planning to rebut everything i say, i'll only talk if you want to learn. If this is going to end up in one big circle-jerk like it did in other threads, you present something, i rebut it, you rebut my rebutal, i rebut that... i'd kindly ask you to stop wasting my time. If your mind is already made up, thats great but if can do nothing to change it why are you even engaging me? Do you just wish to present yourself in some public spectacle if this is the position you hold?Right now it seems the latter, you have already made your mind up and you wont accept the overwhelming evidence or indeed anything i say, if its your intent to just keep constantly challenging me, especially with things that are unscientific and considering your obvious lack of evolutionary biology knowledge, i'd ask you to stop. At the very least read the chapters in the book i was talking about then come back once you fully understand evolution and have some background. I don't think its fair to try bash an idea you dont fully understand, especially with counterarguments you also cant fully understand. Feel free to correct me if you legitimately haven't hardened your mind and aren't a set in stone believer in what you say.

Like i said with my story about newtons laws, if you find one small problem with it, it doesnt mean we should throw it out the window. We should find how we see that problem in light of the facts we already know. So, finding a little exception here and there to what we currently know won't work. We have a million other pieces of evidence that do work and confirm what we know and these are very strong. There's really no use in arguing over the exceptions like you are trying to do.

Likewise, evolution. According to believers theres plentiful evidence for God. Some people might think evolution is a fatal flaw and makes us throw religion out the window, do you think we should do this? Of course. Most religious people are perfectly happly to see evolution in the light of religion and not make any particular fuss over it. It really isn't that big of a problem to the believer.

The Vatican also doesn't say anything against the mistreatment by it's men and what it did to children.

Actually, they've spoken out about it and set up committees to investigate it but lets not talk about this here. Even if this did happen, its by no means any judgment on their view on evolution.. ( https://en.wikipedia...soning_the_well https://en.wikipedia..._by_association ).

Hitler did bad things and thought soup was nice....we shouldn't think soup is nice.. see where that kind of logic gets you.

Even if you dont like the vatican as an institution it doesn't suddenly poison everything they do or every other view they hold. You might not like your boss but doesn't mean he doesn't do good things. I might not agree with everything my friends say but it doesn't make them not my friends...

I dont know where you get this idea i want to argue against the quran. I'm presenting good, evidence based science. I'm not on some crusade against the quran, sneakily using evolution to try to get people to not believe in the quran. As i've shown, if you believe in the literal adam and eve story you think humanity is less than 6000 years old and about 90 generations long which is clearly not true. We have countless pieces of evidence, the genomic evidence being my favourite.

I think i've said enough at this point for you to make up your mind or not. Feel free to go away and make up your mind on the issue but lets not prolong this.

Edited by kingpomba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

I thought you had enough of this talk. Anyway, your tone is quite boring, so I wouldn't mind if you had had enough and simply left the discussion like you haughtily wanted to.

As for Makārem, the wikipedia article itself quoted a tafsīr - so people can check for themselves. Source:

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

The above is confirmed by www.tebyan.net which is a very important website for religious ideas, linked to some elements of the ḥawza.

http://www.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=173051

If you can read Fārsī, get to the point about Makārem Shīrāzī and Motahharī. It also has references at the bottom.

The tebyan article includes Sobḥānī and Meshkīnī as those who uphold the possibility of reconciling Qur'ān and Evolution.

-----

Now take your prosecution to tebyan, I've played my part and sourced my claims.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

Ok, more on this. Sorry again if i was nasty at all before. It had been a long day lol. But um...Yea, the scientists arent the bad guys here, and i personally am not here to attack Islam. To me, this subject really has nothing to do with Islam. Im just here really to defend science. And im sure Pomba is on the same boat.

We arent just making stuff up. It really doesnt have to do with opinion or bias. Its just the way things are. I wouldnt say transitional fossils existed if i had not seen them with my own eyes. I know how paleontologists work, i sort of am one though i typically dont call myself one. Scientists, one thing you will come to find about us is, we fight we eachother...A LOT. Over the smallest concepts we debate and argue all the time. The smallest details. Im saying this from a geology and paleo perspective. The paleo ive worked with I did so specifically with the intent of helping solve an argument.

The point is, people dont publish such huge news without it being scrutinized by a number of scientists. Transitional fossils, i gauruntee hundreds of top of the line scientists have tried to disprove their existance. But the traits that exist...exist. Thats it. You cant argue the existance of something that is there. And so yes we argue a lot, but we conclude a lot too. We agree on things that exist. And nothing else. I argue, almost on a daily basis with other geologists about all sorts of rocks and minerals. But we agree when we understand and know things.

And we agree that these fossils are here, they are transitional, they exist and are very real. They are in the rocks we say they are within. Thats it.

And the biologists do the same with their bio stuff. They recognize mutations occur, they understand that mutations change our proteins and morphology. They agree on what they know. Thats all there is to it.

And there is no doubt in my mind, that...and this goes for anyone on this website. If you see what we see (and you can if you choose to), if you see what we see, you will not disagree, and I am certain of that.

There people here on this site that disagree with us here now, the people on that youtube video that i watched 2 seconds of and turned off...they have not seen what we have seen. Nor do they know what we know.

Why are they trying to fight us? I dont know, probably the same reason people on this website are trying to fight us, but frankly, it doesnt matter, because the people who have seen what we have, know what we know. Regardless of religion. I've met a number of muslim and christian scientists, and by "a number" i mean more than I can count. (well maybe not muslims just because in america we dont have too many muslims where im from). But i have met a handfull none the less, and every one of them would agree with pomba and I now.

So yes, check out talkorigins, check out donexodus2 on youtube, wikipedia honestly isnt a bad site, just check its sources. And once you get through the basics, then you can read our actual research papers to get the full picture. You can find our actual research in databases. Pubmed, ya know, Id give geology ones but they all cost money to my knowledge.

Try sciencedaily.com, thats one of my favorite science news websites, they publish stuff on evolution all the time, they have astronomy and stuff too for the nerdy scientists (which may or may not include myself).

If you see a website talking about religion while its trying to talk about science, then odds are youre in the wrong place. I didnt watch that video najib posted, but based on the context, i would assume the guy in that video is a muslim and id assume he talks a nice bit about Islam. You dont want that. Not that there is anything wrong with Islam and science, its just that, people out here are crazy, we all know this, so if you want science, talk to the scientists. We have no reason to lie. And we know more than those youtube guys.

And thats not to say the guy in that youtube video was lying either. Odds are he was telling the honest opinion he has, but if you dont work with the material, then how would you possibly know about it? Its like expecting a person who plays golf for a living to understand how to play soccor. It just doesnt work.

Alright, thats enough spam from me for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

Sorry if I used stupid language, I think I let myself go..I am still forming my akhlaq but sometimes its difficult..Sorry for everyone if I said stupid things or hurtful.

Wassalam

OK. Now we can have a lovely, calm discussion about what we believe and why. Two Muslims (in our case) with lots of respect for scholars and for one another and for discovering the truth. That's the cue.

First, let's assume that neither of us know anything - absolutely anything - about whether a reputable Muslim scholar would or would not reconcile the theory of Evolution with the Qur'ān.

Second, let's assume that we're both in the same spot, and we're both relying on the evidence we are provided from outside ourselves.

Let's look at the evidence. We have been given 2 types of evidence:

1. References to sources which show that certain reputable Muslim scholars (e.g. Makārem, Meshkīnī, Moṭahharī and Soḥānī) find that they are reconcilable (for arguments sake, we assume that the references are true, since it comes from a reputable religious website, tebyan)

2. The message from the office of Makārem which suggests that the theory of evolution is not reconcilable with the Qur'ān

So, we have 2 contradictory claims for Makārem at least.

Now, let's break this down to what we can derive from the evidence:

1. The evidence still tells us that, beside Makārem, there are other reputable Muslim scholars who have found them reconcilable

2. Makārem has changed his view, but which means that at some point, he upheld this view as a scholar.

-----

Of course, the best thing is to actually check whether the sources referenced in tebyan or wikipedia or anywhere else actually do find the two reconcilable. But the evidence seems to suggest that it does exist.

I've just checked, and the wikipedia source exists. Here is the relevant tafsīr section: http://www.tebyan.net/index.aspx?pid=18395&AyeID=1828

I'm supposing the tebyan references also exist, then.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam aleykom

To Jebreil

I didn't say I prefer the other opinion, but this is the general understanding amongt muslims, and there are people mentioning hadiths and Ahlulbayt traditions as proof.

As I said, the angels had a previous version of humans they could compare too to say what they said..so, if it was as you said, the whole evolution thing till we arrive to a certain point when Allah (swt) decided that this will be a "unique" creation..this is not opposing the Quran.

The idea of going through alot of developement and evolution is not strange to me, or to many others I think. Like the example of earth and sky (Astaghfer Allah, not having the exact verse in hands)..in that example, the earth and sky were one and then they were torn apart..I can't imagine how they looked like if they were one unit and still being earth and sky, how could they melt together somehow?? yeah, science makes me understand that..

..but if it was the other way around..well, it's still not opposing Quran, but opposing our "science" and what we handle everyday of facts..so that's the part we are discussing (I think) and I'm interested to make it sound reasonable with what we know and understand today..

And, I will read the rest of comments, and get back inshaAllah

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really up to you to decide whether its "cool" or not, especially if you're not a scientist with full understandings of these things.

Science isn't democratic and it shouldn't be democratic. That’s not how science works.

We don't sit around and vote for the answer we like best, we look at the evidence and find an answer that works the best, no matter how much we do or dont like it.

As a biologist i can confidently say the distinction you make between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a false one. Microevolution leads to macroevolution, as you call and use these terms anyway.

Salam again

I have to reply in small pieces, sorry

well, I'm not voting here,I was summarizing the ideas that came up in this thread..well, the scientific one no need to discuss since we read it in school, but it's the other ideas and misconsumptions muslims have that need discussion and refining.

So, it seems people (and one made a ref to a scholar's web page I think) accept evolution in animals but not in human beings. So, when it comes to human beings people (muslims) can accept that we have mutations here and there, hence skin color, diseases and so on, but don't accept that humans evolved from apes..that's what I noticed/understood from this thread. So, yes for me it seems they accept, as long as we talk human beings, microevolution but not micro..which as u said, is a result of microev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

Its that easy, it takes 2 seconds to google. Its not hard. The fossils are here, theyre not fake, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. There have been literally camps of large numbers of ancient hominids that have been found. We arent talking about 1 or 2 skeletons, were talking about hundreds. This guy cant even name the fossils let alone call them out as fakes.

jumoing to conclusion I see..I was talking about the one in norway, that was recently discovered and claimed to be the missing link, not talking about ALL fossils!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it’s incredibly biased and rigid to argue we "will never have any proof...ever" when you can't possibly know that for a fact. You can't know if we'll discover proof tomorrow or not, you're essentially saying you've already made up your mind and you think there'll never be any proof or that you'll never believe in such proof.

....

Care to elaborate what exactly you think this missing link is and what it should look like or is it just some buzz word you picked up from the media and know next to nothing about?

Many people who bring this challenge just scream out Missing Link! like apes beating their chest (see how i slipped that joke in) Missing link! without even knowing what their talking about. A lot of them are quite insincere as well, most of these people i've talked to know next to nothing about genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, ect. They wouldn't even be able to identify the missing link they wanted if we did find it. Most of these people also haven't even taken steps to educate themselves on this matter, they wouldn't even be able to tell if it was a missing link or not. To me, this shows me that they don't genuinely care about finding the actual missing link or whether there is a missing link or not, it’s just a slogan they love to shout out while they go around doubting good science. I'm not saying this is you but most people who use this argument wouldn't know a missing link if it hit them in the face.

if I was biased? yes, towards that we, people argueing in this thread wouldn't be alive when this happen (the discovery I mean) not towards we will never find that link..I'm aware of all bioogy, genetics, and archeology needed before you authenticate a discovery..I have been waiting for it for long time, and would love to experience it soon before I die..

and then about the scientific facts with biochemistry, genetics and so on..again ,as I said to Jebreil, if everything fits together, waw nice, not opposing Quran still...if it's not, then we keep argueing, and thats what we are doing..I mean if muslims said yes to evolution and all, we wouldn't be arguing, so Im trying to collect info here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could i see some quranic proof for this assertion? Unless you're being non-literal, in that case why even hang on to Adam and Eve at all.

Even if you believe in Adam and eve, as i have shown above, this implies that the human race is only about 4000-6000 years old and only something like 80 generations when it quite clearly is neither of those things.

It's a wounded idea, there’s so many problems with it that the logical and intelligent person ought not to hold onto what clearly is an allegory and a story about creation, life, divine grace and a tale to explain the origin of man.

But, here the genes would be mixed then, with "older" and "younger/newer" mutations, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

Its that easy, it takes 2 seconds to google. Its not hard. The fossils are here, theyre not fake, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. There have been literally camps of large numbers of ancient hominids that have been found. We arent talking about 1 or 2 skeletons, were talking about hundreds. This guy cant even name the fossils let alone call them out as fakes.

You guys are pulling at every straw, looking for every single possible option, besides the simplest one that is right here before you. Theres no need to entertain wild ideas about a man springing in full form from a puddle of mud, ripping his rib out of his chest and having it transform into a women. No...theres no need to believe that a human male and female mated with angels and jin (neither of which anyone here has ever seen nor knows anything about, and even if they did exist they arent even physically existent things that can have sex with humans). arent jinns made of smoke or something?

Why are people tossing around these wild ideas about people having babies with clouds of smoke? Why not just say, hey...my DNA changes, i can see that, that means that I change too, and i can see that too when i see that parents have children who look different from them. Its that easy. And look! I even have hundreds of fossils of ancient humans that look almost like me but not quite, so reasonably they probably evolved.

Its that easy guys. go read about this stuff, go read about the fossils on wikipedia or something. Go read about mutations. talkorigins is a good website that could help, go check it out, google it. Use youtube if you have to. DonExodus2 has plenty of educational videos. Do something, because this is embarassing.

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, more on this. Sorry again if i was nasty at all before. It had been a long day lol. But um...Yea, the scientists arent the bad guys here, and i personally am not here to attack Islam. To me, this subject really has nothing to do with Islam. Im just here really to defend science. And im sure Pomba is on the same boat. We arent just making stuff up.

yeah, this is a major issue..are we trying to test hypothesis and presenting different opinions, or just attacking each other for the sake of attacking each other?

just present data and discuss it all like you cant proof if its right or wrong (simply because we are comparing teology and science, not science to science, most believers are interested in thier own faith rather logic, and they think thye have to believe 100% in every single letter and word they hear from a scholar)

I think Najib started this new "spirit" in this thread..thanx for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jumoing to conclusion I see..I was talking about the one in norway, that was recently discovered and claimed to be the missing link, not talking about ALL fossils!!

I dont care what you were or were not talking about, i was just providing transitional fossils. To tell u the truth i didnt even read your previous post because it doesnt matter to me. Ill post the link again too lol

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

its that easy, 2 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then about the scientific facts with biochemistry, genetics and so on..again ,as I said to Jebreil, if everything fits together, waw nice, not opposing Quran still...if it's not, then we keep argueing, and thats what we are doing..I mean if muslims said yes to evolution and all, we wouldn't be arguing, so Im trying to collect info here

Ive never met a muslim scientist who disagrees with me. Not any trained in biology or geology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Well ok, ill be honest, its not an easy explanation, i just simplified it 100 fold for this discussion. If you would like, feel free to read up. Then we can get more complex when we both know whats going on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Also, it depends on what youre challanging. The fossil succession supports evolution with its transitionals. That is to say that very old rocks contain older types of animals. More specifically in old rocks you will find nothing but fish, in younger rocks you will find land animals. and in between you find animals that are like fish, but also like land animals. This is what is found. Its established. On the bio end, its also established that DNA based organisms mutate. when they mutate, they physically change. This is established and known. There are the most basic pieces of evolutionary theory and they are established and known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind you, this is actually about evolution and Islam as the title suggests. So not only about evolution, so that is also why I talked about the Qur'an. I think it is permissible here on this forum, and then it is up to you to defend it on this forum..so just a reminder nothing else.

When we talk about science, we talk about science. Thats all there is to that. The discussion involving butterflies and fossils and mutations...thats all science, and thats where it stays when talking to people of science. It is an overall topic that includes Islam, but when you move into science, thats where you move, thats all there is, you dont manipulate it with politics nor religion. You establish it, then you determine politics and religion after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aleykumassalam,

When a scholar changes his view, it would mean he has done some research on it before changing it, otherwise he wouldn't just change it. Moreover, you are still claiming that Shirazi changed his view, while you are not sure about it. I know tebyan, but I don't know if I can really say it's the most trustworthy site on the internet. They just take everything as truth and publish it, I really don't believe there's a good team of scholars behind it to update information and check it. And Wikipedia is not reliable at all as I said. I can't even use it for essays on schools..that should say something. About Mutahhari it would not be good to quote him, because we can't really ask him now can we? Maybe someone else wrote it on his name, but it could be false or he could've changed it later on like you presume Shirazi did..

But still, there are like 99% others who say evolution is against Islam and probably the other sects' scholars too. That would mean something and humans can make mistakes so scholars too, they do not have the 'Alimul-Ghayb' of Prophets and Imams (PBUT). Therefore, I would still follow the general view on evolution and the Quran so that would mean it's contradictive.

PLUS, what if it was true, don't you think there would be AT LEAST one hadith, even if it would be weak? Like Imam Ali (as) in his sermon would say: God created monkeys from clay, and formed them etc etc and then we evolved and then for a specified time he let us dry?? Or just one hadith of Imam Jafar(AS) at least..or even in Sunni books. But there is literally nothing on that subject said by anyone..So then if a scholar would say something like that, he would say it by his own knowledge, which I don't prefer much.

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

There is much of true science which we know nothing about. And, there are some ḥadīth which suggest evolution, like before Adam there were more Adams.

Anyhow, I think we've reached a fruitful end. I've actually provided the excerpt from Tafsīr Nemūne compiled by Makārem in my previous post, and so, he has said this at some point. You can also find the relevant Moṭahharī excerpts too, as well as Meshkīnī and Sobḥānī.

From al-islam.org, referring to Makārem's book:

From what we have mentioned above, we infer that although the verses of the Qur`an do not directly mention the issue of evolution or 'constancy of species', nevertheless, the apparent meanings of the verses is more in accordance with the concept of independent creation (of course, this is as far as the creation of man is concerned). Despite not being entirely explicit, the apparent meanings of the verses dealing with the creation of Adam (a.s.) mostly tend to revolve around the concept of independent creation; but with regards to the other living beings, the Noble Qur`an remains silent.

http://www.al-islam.org/180_questions_vol2/21.htm

al-islam.org is a very reputable source.

--------------

Regardless of whether he changed his stance or not, the fact that a reputable scholar at some point writes this means that it is not inconceivable for a scholar to believe the two to be reconcilable. If endorsing the possibility of evolution was sinful or took you out of the folds of islām or was shirk or kufr or glaringly false, then a scholar such as Makārem would never ever write that in a million years. The fact that he did shows that it is neither sinful, nor apostasy, nor shirk, nor kufr, nor glaringly false.

Also, the fact that other scholars have also held this belief of reconcilability means that it is not unIslāmic.

By Beheshtī and Bāhonar, two martyred scholars of Islām:

Anyhow, it is important to note that the emergence of man on the basis of evolution from other primates is not in conflict with the teachings of the revealed religions, especially with the belief of an Almighty Creator of the world. We have repeatedly mentioned in Islamic Teachings that Allah, as described by the Qur'an, is the Creator and Disposer of nature. Therefore the perfect system of nature is one of His signs and not an arrangement parallel to Him or negating Him. All the scientific discussions and efforts are aimed at only finding out this system of nature as it actually exists.

http://www.al-islam.org/philosophyofislam/11.htm

----------

Conclusion

It is not unIslāmic to claim that the Qur'ān and Evolution are reconcilable.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aleykumassalam,

I think again you have taken those words out of context to my opinion. When they say the Quran has remained silent about it, it does not mean they think the Islamic system IS in fact opposing evolution. Actually I do not think that Makarem Shirazi has changed his view, but you have taken his text out of context. So he explained that it could be scientifically explained, but NOT through evolution because he says its false. That is how I see it, otherwise they would explicitly mention Darwin´s theory and say that this theory COULD be true in regards to Islam. But they did not.

Wassalamo Aleykum

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

If you read those links in their entirety - a bit of a long read - you will find reference to Darwin's name and work. Those scholars don't necessarily believe in it, but they find it reconcilable.

That's what I'm arguing. I'm not a scientist, and I can't prove to you that Evolution is true. But I can see that many scholars, regardless of whether they believe in it, do not exclude the possibility of reconciliation.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im claiming victory and dominion over this topic in the name of science, due to the continual dissapearance of our opposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.