HassanShia

Evolution And Islam?

Rate this topic

214 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Human%20Migration%20Map.jpgmp_full.2.jpg

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.

neanderthals_786.gif

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

Najib likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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:

25t7ok4.jpg

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.

life-span-of-bible-patriarchs-before-after-the-flood.jpg

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:

pizwc.png

Çåá ÇáÈíÊ likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

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)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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.