HassanShia

Evolution And Islam?

Rate this topic

214 posts in this topic

5 hours ago, Al Hadi said:

my problem is

Fossil record

 

#1 the fossil record specifically the Cambrian explosion as it is called so many species there along with their phlum level differences appearing first rather than last in the fossil record. This is like the big bang of biology. If species changed over time then the Cambrian explosion shouldn't exist it shouldn't be the case that these differences were existing at the same time with other families. Darwinists commonly respond "well these changes in phyla where to small or specific to be preserved by the fossil record." but that kind of doesn't make sense when we have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks said to be billions of years older than the Cambrian.

Plus many of the fossils were soft bodied meaning even the organs were noticeable at times in 1994 UCLA paleobiologist William Schopf(you can look him up) even said that the idea of Precambrian organisms being to small to preserve in the geologic materials is incorrect.

The changes predicted by Darwin the from bottom to top the Cambrian explosion illustrates the opposite major phylum level differences actually appeared first not last in other words changes from top to bottom. 

 

#2There is also absence of transitional  forms of fossils between aquatic mammals and terrestrial mammals. Land animals did not appear until after the Cambrian period. The fossil record shows land mammals only after the extincton of the dinosaurs, but for some reason after that whales appeared. I find that suspicious almost. There are a lot of changes in physiology that would be needed to turn a land animal into a whale. There are no clear transitional fossils between land animals and whales.

 

#3 Also no fossils has a birth certificate on it so they cannot be evidence for decent with modification.You cant take a line of fossils and say they are connected and represent a line because there is no way to test that. This kind of argument was stated by an evolutionary biologist in 1999 named Henry Gee.

For example if you look at automobiles take a 1950's version of a car all the way to 1990 version line them up. The cars still don't prove that they gave birth to one another rather we know they have a maker. There is no descent with modification just because each time the car is modified it is made.

I see, sorry missed it before, id be happy to go through it.

#1 the fossil record specifically the Cambrian explosion as it is called so many species there along with their phlum level differences appearing first rather than last in the fossil record. This is like the big bang of biology. If species changed over time then the Cambrian explosion shouldn't exist it shouldn't be the case that these differences were existing at the same time with other families. Darwinists commonly respond "well these changes in phyla where to small or specific to be preserved by the fossil record." but that kind of doesn't make sense when we have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks said to be billions of years older than the Cambrian.

 

Well, ill expand here, first off, there are other fossils that predate the cambrian explosion, you can google the ediacara biota.  So, the cambrian explosion is not comparable to the big bang.

Aside from that though, the cambrian explosion is thought to have occurred as a sort of, an evolutionary arms race.  Much like Russia and the US were racing, technologically during the cold war, predators and prey are believed to have pressured eachother, through natural selection, to "explode" in variation.  You may ask why at that time, well...The cambrian explosion occurred at the time of the rifting of rodinia, which coincided with the end of a large ice age.  So, there are thoughts that, the end of an ice age, and the rifting of a supercontinent, created greater amounts of shallow marine, warm temperate environments for life to thrive in.

So thats for number 1.

#2There is also absence of transitional  forms of fossils between aquatic mammals and terrestrial mammals. Land animals did not appear until after the Cambrian period. The fossil record shows land mammals only after the extincton of the dinosaurs, but for some reason after that whales appeared. I find that suspicious almost. There are a lot of changes in physiology that would be needed to turn a land animal into a whale. There are no clear transitional fossils between land animals and whales.

whales-graph.jpg

There are many, if you really want to go into detail on this topic we can, but i would say that there are a number of fossils in the mammal to whale sequence that have been discovered.  Many from egypt if i recall correctly.

#3 is a good point.  You cant tell if one fossil in particular, or one species identified in the fossil record, necessarily gave birth to a specific other fossil or species.  But you have to understand that, the fossil record is just one field of science, paleontology.  The power of the theory of evolution isnt in just one field, it is spread across many.  This is why it is so powerful, because as a geologist, I can look at the fossil record and I can derive thoughts.  The whale sequence above for example, it implies that over time, mammals, then whale like mammal, then mammal like whales, then whales appeared in a particular location on earth in a sequence over time. What does it mean? Its not too important on its own.  But then when you hear the biologists ranting about mutations, you look back at your fossils and youre like...hold on a second, maybe that is exactly why we see the fossil succession that we do.  Then you realize that about 20 other independent fields are seeing the same stuff and you get to a point where youre like, well, to be fair, the theory of evolution simply makes sense. To be fair.

This is also what makes the theory of evolution, somewhat challenging for people to pick up.  First off, its controversial on religious grounds, which is a very tough obstacle in and of itself, but beyond that, to understand it, you need to be informed of information across multiple fields of science. Its tough enough just being knowledgeable of one field, let alone 5. So, its difficult to raise awareness.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"but that kind of doesn't make sense when we have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks said to be billions of years older than the Cambrian. "

On this as well, its good to be aware, in a general sense, of the number of fossils there are and what kinds there are.

A lot of the super ancient fossils, like stromatolites for example (these guys are ancient, billions of years like you referenced), are biological constructs, as opposed to actual bodies, so they are "trace fossils" and not actual fossil fossils, if that makes sense.  And shelled organisms are preserved in far greater number than non shelled.  Fossils of the cambrian explosion, in many cases were shelled, like trilobites. And while it is true that soft bodied fossils have been found to pre date the cambrian, they are not in numbers nearly as great as fossils of the cambrian, and soft bodied lagerstatten, are not found in numbers nearly as great as shelled fossils.

 

This is also part of the reason the cambrian explosion was so distinct, animals had shells.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

"but that kind of doesn't make sense when we have discovered microfossils of tiny bacteria in rocks said to be billions of years older than the Cambrian. "

On this as well, its good to be aware, in a general sense, of the number of fossils there are and what kinds there are.

A lot of the super ancient fossils, like stromatolites for example (these guys are ancient, billions of years like you referenced), are biological constructs, as opposed to actual bodies, so they are "trace fossils" and not actual fossil fossils, if that makes sense.  And shelled organisms are preserved in far greater number than non shelled.  Fossils of the cambrian explosion, in many cases were shelled, like trilobites. And while it is true that soft bodied fossils have been found to pre date the cambrian, they are not in numbers nearly as great as fossils of the cambrian, and soft bodied lagerstatten, are not found in numbers nearly as great as shelled fossils.

 

This is also part of the reason the cambrian explosion was so distinct, animals had shells.

Man you have a lot of knowledge on this stuff that's crazy. I didn't know about the transitional fossils of whales though that's awesome that you got that your right this stuff requires you grab things from a lot of different places I at least got that from my AP biology class. 

I still have more issues with this theory although I will admit you did a great job in dismantling 2/3 of my arguments my 3rd point you cant prove unless you find a birth certificate of a fossil until then I have that one.

I still have issues on embryology

#1 The Haeckel drawings are fake. Haeckel not only faked the drawings but was kind of selective he omitted mammals that look different like the order of mammals that platypuses and kangaroos belong too.

and some amphibians like frogs that look different. Stephen Jay Gould said the embryos were fake he was an evolutionary biologist last time I checked.

 

When an animal egg is fertilized(your right lots of different fields) it first goes through a process called cleavage at this stage it divides into hundreds of different cells then they begin to arrange themselves this process is called gastrulation this process establishes the animals shape. if DARWIN was right and animals are most similar in their earlier stages than in gastrulation they should be similar in looks not afterwards those are the earlier periods they should be different in.

 

#2 Genes in embryonic development like fossils also don't prove anything despite similarity of DNA with other animals.

Darwinists tend to assume that organisms are different because of different genes. if genes dictate embryo development then mutations in developmental genes would transform the embryo and that would be evolution. however in the 80's evolutionary developmental biologists discovered that  very different animals have very similar developmental genes. A gene needed in eye development for a mouse for example can cause eye development in a fruit fly embryo. The genes are interchangeable because the developmental genes are similar. There is a take away here though however the fruit fly still aquires fruit fly eyes through the mouse gene. Also the genes aren't specific imagine an ignition switch in a car put in a jet the jet doesn't become a car because you put a car ignition switch. It doesn't prove anything in fact a creationist can simply say God used the same method to create different things. If I have to repair scissors and a pencil with the same type of tape it doesn't mean that the pencil and scissors have a common ancestor. 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Al Hadi said:

Man you have a lot of knowledge on this stuff that's crazy. I didn't know about the transitional fossils of whales though that's awesome that you got that your right this stuff requires you grab things from a lot of different places I at least got that from my AP biology class. 

I still have more issues with this theory although I will admit you did a great job in dismantling 2/3 of my arguments my 3rd point you cant prove unless you find a birth certificate of a fossil until then I have that one.

I still have issues on embryology

#1 The Haeckel drawings are fake. Haeckel not only faked the drawings but was kind of selective he omitted mammals that look different like the order of mammals that platypuses and kangaroos belong too.

and some amphibians like frogs that look different. Stephen Jay Gould said the embryos were fake he was an evolutionary biologist last time I checked.

When an animal egg is fertilized(your right lots of different fields) it first goes through a process called cleavage at this stage it divides into hundreds of different cells then they begin to arrange themselves this process is called gastrulation this process establishes the animals shape. if DARWIN was right and animals are most similar in their earlier stages than in gastrulation they should be similar in looks not afterwards those are the earlier periods they should be different in.

 

#2 Genes in embryonic development like fossils also don't prove anything despite similarity of DNA with other animals.

Darwinists tend to assume that organisms are different because of different genes. if genes dictate embryo development then mutations in developmental genes would transform the embryo and that would be evolution. however in the 80's evolutionary developmental biologists discovered that  very different animals have very similar developmental genes. A gene needed in eye development for a mouse for example can cause eye development in a fruit fly embryo. The genes are interchangeable because the developmental genes are similar. There is a take away here though however the fruit fly still aquires fruit fly eyes through the mouse gene. Also the genes aren't specific imagine an ignition switch in a car put in a jet the jet doesn't become a car because you put a car ignition switch. It doesn't prove anything in fact a creationist can simply say God used the same method to create different things. If I have to repair scissors and a pencil with the same type of tape it doesn't mean that the pencil and scissors have a common ancestor. 

thanks, i just use google a lot and find good info in books from time to time.

Ill see what I can do for these next two, they are a bit tougher for me because I am not a biologist, but ill see what I can do regardless.

"

#1 The Haeckel drawings are fake. Haeckel not only faked the drawings but was kind of selective he omitted mammals that look different like the order of mammals that platypuses and kangaroos belong too.

and some amphibians like frogs that look different. Stephen Jay Gould said the embryos were fake he was an evolutionary biologist last time I checked.

When an animal egg is fertilized(your right lots of different fields) it first goes through a process called cleavage at this stage it divides into hundreds of different cells then they begin to arrange themselves this process is called gastrulation this process establishes the animals shape. if DARWIN was right and animals are most similar in their earlier stages than in gastrulation they should be similar in looks not afterwards those are the earlier periods they should be different in."

 

From my understanding, there is some truth in this, in that features of embryos were exaggerated in Haeckels drawings and that he deliberately chose organisms with similar embryos while ignoring abnormal ones such as...the platypus for example.

 I do recall relatedness between fish embryos and embryos of all chordates and human embryos in particular. There is a book, your inner fish by neil shubin, in which he talks about specific folds in embryos of fish and how they relate to embryos of mammals and how certain folds in those embryos, while identical in early stages of development, branch off into various features that later make up our inner ear and the gills of fish. He also discusses HOX genes and how they trigger development at various states of an animals life and how multiple organisms contain these same genes.  There really is a lot to evolutionary development, its a very technical field of science. But I am pretty limited here. I would not make the statement that ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_15

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

At best, for this topic I would say just ignore the embryo drawings.  There are research papers by various scientists pointing out their flaws that you can read. You mentioned Stephen Gould, feel free to read his documents, he actually has some good research papers that are worth reading. Dont be mistaken in thinking that Gould does not support the theory despite research critiquing others though.  Some people do and it takes work explaining his research when people quote mine him, so if you read someones scientific research, make sure you read it in full.

So yea. It is good to be open when you find people trying to be deceptive about science. You would be surprised the things people make up to try to either get some sort of financial reward or to try to get their name out there.  In the case of these drawings, looks like it was a big oops and now in hind site we see a number of scientists who have criticized these drawings.

Lastly id just want to point out that the theory is not dependent upon these drawings. So, i dont think anyone is disappointed in losing them.

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

"#2 Genes in embryonic development like fossils also don't prove anything despite similarity of DNA with other animals.

Darwinists tend to assume that organisms are different because of different genes. if genes dictate embryo development then mutations in developmental genes would transform the embryo and that would be evolution. however in the 80's evolutionary developmental biologists discovered that  very different animals have very similar developmental genes. A gene needed in eye development for a mouse for example can cause eye development in a fruit fly embryo. The genes are interchangeable because the developmental genes are similar. There is a take away here though however the fruit fly still aquires fruit fly eyes through the mouse gene. Also the genes aren't specific imagine an ignition switch in a car put in a jet the jet doesn't become a car because you put a car ignition switch. It doesn't prove anything in fact a creationist can simply say God used the same method to create different things. If I have to repair scissors and a pencil with the same type of tape it doesn't mean that the pencil and scissors have a common ancestor. "

 

This is interesting ^. When it comes to genetic similarities between organisms, This almost feels kind of like a straw man, because nobody really states that...because X and Y animal has similar DNA, they are by default closely related.  While it appears to be true, relatedness is recognized more by, not necessarily similarities, but differences, sequenced differences in a phylogenetic tree. Unfortunately our good biologists here on SC have come and go over the years and arent around anymore to talk about it.  But I do have a video i saw years ago (see below).

This guy just points out that, it isnt really just a matter of genetics being similar, but its about an ordered sequence of mutations being present in all living things.  These mutations independently, when sequenced, build their own phylogenetic tree. He doesnt mention it in this video, but the phylogonetic tree built purely via genetics actually matches the phylogenetic tree built in the fossil record.

I think that, for people who deny the theory, well, I cant imagine how they would explain the match between a DNA based tree and a fossil based tree.  It would just be a massive coincidence.  And actually come to think of it, Ken Miller once said that if evolution were not true, it would be as if God had created life to look like it had evolved.  As if, God were actually being deceptive in making evolution look like it were true.  Then he follows by saying something like, as a roman catholic, I do not believe in a deceptive God (therefore it likely is true).

And I  agree with Ken.  Ask any opposition or creationist why this matchup exists and you wont be able to get a response, they simply cant acknowledge its existence, because there is only one common sense answer that would explain it. That is descent with modifications via mutations and natural selection (though there may be more to it than we currently understand, fundamentally it is clear). Andn to clarify when I say creationists, I mean someone who believes life instantaneously appeared, not necessarily people who believe in forms of intelligent design via common descent.

Let me know if the video doesnt make sense or if you dont know what I mean when I say that the tree of genetics matches the tree of the fossil record.

 

Best of luck then, also scientists are always looking for more hands on deck if that is what youre studying, and feel free to check out links in my signature.  Ive made several topics over the years that you may like.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who would have thought that after 5 years I would be reading my own words again.  Seems like just yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 8:55 AM, iCambrian said:

thanks, i just use google a lot and find good info in books from time to time.

Ill see what I can do for these next two, they are a bit tougher for me because I am not a biologist, but ill see what I can do regardless.

"

#1 The Haeckel drawings are fake. Haeckel not only faked the drawings but was kind of selective he omitted mammals that look different like the order of mammals that platypuses and kangaroos belong too.

and some amphibians like frogs that look different. Stephen Jay Gould said the embryos were fake he was an evolutionary biologist last time I checked.

When an animal egg is fertilized(your right lots of different fields) it first goes through a process called cleavage at this stage it divides into hundreds of different cells then they begin to arrange themselves this process is called gastrulation this process establishes the animals shape. if DARWIN was right and animals are most similar in their earlier stages than in gastrulation they should be similar in looks not afterwards those are the earlier periods they should be different in."

 

From my understanding, there is some truth in this, in that features of embryos were exaggerated in Haeckels drawings and that he deliberately chose organisms with similar embryos while ignoring abnormal ones such as...the platypus for example.

 I do recall relatedness between fish embryos and embryos of all chordates and human embryos in particular. There is a book, your inner fish by neil shubin, in which he talks about specific folds in embryos of fish and how they relate to embryos of mammals and how certain folds in those embryos, while identical in early stages of development, branch off into various features that later make up our inner ear and the gills of fish. He also discusses HOX genes and how they trigger development at various states of an animals life and how multiple organisms contain these same genes.  There really is a lot to evolutionary development, its a very technical field of science. But I am pretty limited here. I would not make the statement that ontogeny recapitulated phylogeny.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/history_15

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

At best, for this topic I would say just ignore the embryo drawings.  There are research papers by various scientists pointing out their flaws that you can read. You mentioned Stephen Gould, feel free to read his documents, he actually has some good research papers that are worth reading. Dont be mistaken in thinking that Gould does not support the theory despite research critiquing others though.  Some people do and it takes work explaining his research when people quote mine him, so if you read someones scientific research, make sure you read it in full.

So yea. It is good to be open when you find people trying to be deceptive about science. You would be surprised the things people make up to try to either get some sort of financial reward or to try to get their name out there.  In the case of these drawings, looks like it was a big oops and now in hind site we see a number of scientists who have criticized these drawings.

Lastly id just want to point out that the theory is not dependent upon these drawings. So, i dont think anyone is disappointed in losing them.

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

"#2 Genes in embryonic development like fossils also don't prove anything despite similarity of DNA with other animals.

Darwinists tend to assume that organisms are different because of different genes. if genes dictate embryo development then mutations in developmental genes would transform the embryo and that would be evolution. however in the 80's evolutionary developmental biologists discovered that  very different animals have very similar developmental genes. A gene needed in eye development for a mouse for example can cause eye development in a fruit fly embryo. The genes are interchangeable because the developmental genes are similar. There is a take away here though however the fruit fly still aquires fruit fly eyes through the mouse gene. Also the genes aren't specific imagine an ignition switch in a car put in a jet the jet doesn't become a car because you put a car ignition switch. It doesn't prove anything in fact a creationist can simply say God used the same method to create different things. If I have to repair scissors and a pencil with the same type of tape it doesn't mean that the pencil and scissors have a common ancestor. "

 

This is interesting ^. When it comes to genetic similarities between organisms, This almost feels kind of like a straw man, because nobody really states that...because X and Y animal has similar DNA, they are by default closely related.  While it appears to be true, relatedness is recognized more by, not necessarily similarities, but differences, sequenced differences in a phylogenetic tree. Unfortunately our good biologists here on SC have come and go over the years and arent around anymore to talk about it.  But I do have a video i saw years ago (see below).

This guy just points out that, it isnt really just a matter of genetics being similar, but its about an ordered sequence of mutations being present in all living things.  These mutations independently, when sequenced, build their own phylogenetic tree. He doesnt mention it in this video, but the phylogonetic tree built purely via genetics actually matches the phylogenetic tree built in the fossil record.

I think that, for people who deny the theory, well, I cant imagine how they would explain the match between a DNA based tree and a fossil based tree.  It would just be a massive coincidence.  And actually come to think of it, Ken Miller once said that if evolution were not true, it would be as if God had created life to look like it had evolved.  As if, God were actually being deceptive in making evolution look like it were true.  Then he follows by saying something like, as a roman catholic, I do not believe in a deceptive God (therefore it likely is true).

And I  agree with Ken.  Ask any opposition or creationist why this matchup exists and you wont be able to get a response, they simply cant acknowledge its existence, because there is only one common sense answer that would explain it. That is descent with modifications via mutations and natural selection (though there may be more to it than we currently understand, fundamentally it is clear). Andn to clarify when I say creationists, I mean someone who believes life instantaneously appeared, not necessarily people who believe in forms of intelligent design via common descent.

Let me know if the video doesnt make sense or if you dont know what I mean when I say that the tree of genetics matches the tree of the fossil record.

 

Best of luck then, also scientists are always looking for more hands on deck if that is what youre studying, and feel free to check out links in my signature.  Ive made several topics over the years that you may like.

I cant see the video cause I have youtube blocked along with other websites. Sorry about that.

Can you give me a link to  a website that discusses the connection between the fossil tree and DNA tree thing you were talking about?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Ill see what I can find in regards to the phylogenetic trees. When I have time I can explain.

Ultimately, education is best. You can go on amazon and get some books. Ken miller, Neil shubin, Carl Sagan, Steven hawking etc.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on the discussion of these matching trees in paleontology and genetics, see below.

http://www.tolweb.org/tree/

So, Here is a database in which people have mapped out this "tree of life".

Its a bit hard to describe all the factors that weight in to make it up. But um, you need to have a general understanding of monophyletic classification and cladistics.

And understand how organisms are classified by morphological traits and/or genetic traits.

Then beyond that you would want to have a general understanding of geology and its fundamental laws and dating or the earth.  Then understand the orders and sequences understood in the fossil record.

If you understand these things, then you would be able to see what I am talking about.  Each of them, alone, are in depth areas of science. I could talk almost endlessly about paleontology for example. 

Its hard for me to explain things without going on 20 page rants. Feel free to check out some of the topics I have already made.

Maybe I should make a post on the fossil succession.

 

 

25-11-cladogram-al1.jpg

This might help^

 

So, All the animals of the cladogram above have a backbone, except the lancelet.  All the animals above have jaws, except the lancelet and lamprey. And so on.

So, this cladogram is depicting morphological traits.

Now imagine if the Lancelet had the DNA, AAAAAA

The Lamprey AAAAAB

the Tuna  AAAACB

the Salamander, AAAYCB

the Turtle AADYCB

The Leopard, ABDYCB.

Based on the DNA of living organisms, you can also develop a cladogram and it will match the cladogram built based on morphological traits. Because what happens is, the mutations of ancestors are carried along their lineage, and animals that evolve from those ancestors, still maintain that genetic history, recorded in their DNA.

But now, imagine if we have the earth (dotted lines equate to rock layers)

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

Leopard - mammal

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

Turtle - reptile

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

Salamander - amphibian

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

Tuna - Jawed fish gnathostomata

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

Lamprey - Chordate agnatha, its a fish

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

Lancelet - Invertebrate

The core traits that identify the animals of the cladogram, are found in the earth, as fossils, in the same order that you would derive based on the DNA and morphology of currently living animals, if that makes sense.

That is to say, amphibians are found in older rocks than reptiles, and reptiles older than mammals, and as you see above, morphological traits place these animals in the same order, as does their DNA.

So in paleontology a cladogram can be made, purely off of fossils and the rock layers in which theyre found. But when you take that cladogram and you recognize that the pattern of fossils matches the pattern in our DNA and morphology, it is a smack in the face.

And this is something that no denier of evolution can explain. Their response is to either deny the existence of the fossil record, or deny...well i dont know.  They have to deny fundamental, well understood science.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And not to go on too long of a rant here, but having genetics and anatomy and morphology and the fossil record all independently match up, empowers each field.  Paleontologists can make predictions on where fossils will be discovered, in part based on morphology, genetics and the fossil succession as it is.  Imagine that, predicting where fossils are in the earth, in part based on the morphology of currently living fish and reptiles.  But this is exactly what we are doing and it is working.

But thats a rant for another day I guess.

Edited by iCambrian
Logic. likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, iCambrian said:

And not to go on too long of a rant here, but having genetics and anatomy and morphology and the fossil record all independently match up, empowers each field.  Paleontologists can make predictions on where fossils will be discovered, in part based on morphology, genetics and the fossil succession as it is.  Imagine that, predicting where fossils are in the earth, in part based on the morphology of currently living fish and reptiles.  But this is exactly what we are doing and it is working.

But thats a rant for another day I guess.

What if God created amphibians then reptiles then other stuff doesn't prove evolution a creationist(which is somewhat like me but I have been a bit more open to evolution lately) could say this proves that God creates things in a certain order or fashion. Not that they evolved remember my automobile example nobody looks at 1950s convertible and 1970 then say that car gave birth too 10 different cars each with a different engine then one survived and started producing offspring. 

See the thing with the example is you could say a lot of that stuff is true the best version of the model was chosen to be continued and improved. Here is the thing though no one will say the car gave birth we know the car was made. Not that we know for sure scientifically at least humans and other animals were made but its not proven that creationism is false maybe a natural form of creationism happened that can be e scientifically one day happened and this might be in line with religious texts. Because of all that we can't say for sure that humans weren't made through some kind of creationism.

disclaimer I admit I still need to do more research I plan on reading Dawkins book the greatest show on earth and others so that way if I do or don't believe in evolution at least I know that I did all the research. For now though I say I'm not convinced cause there is no full 100% proof though this may be due to my lack of research for me it's still not proven. 

 

 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Al Hadi said:

What if God created amphibians then reptiles then other stuff doesn't prove evolution a creationist(which is somewhat like me but I have been a bit more open to evolution lately) could say this proves that God creates things in a certain order or fashion. Not that they evolved remember my automobile example nobody looks at 1950s convertible and 1970 then say that car gave birth too 10 different cars each with a different engine then one survived and started producing offspring. 

See the thing with the example is you could say a lot of that stuff is true the best version of the model was chosen to be continued and improved. Here is the thing though no one will say the car gave birth we know the car was made. Not that we know for sure scientifically at least humans and other animals were made but its not proven that creationism is false maybe a natural form of creationism happened that can be e scientifically one day happened and this might be in line with religious texts. Because of all that we can't say for sure that humans weren't made through some kind of creationism.

disclaimer I admit I still need to do more research I plan on reading Dawkins book the greatest show on earth and others so that way if I do or don't believe in evolution at least I know that I did all the research. For now though I say I'm not convinced cause there is no full 100% proof though this may be due to my lack of research for me it's still not proven. 

 

 

Well, in regards to my post above, I will leave you with one question.

Why would a phylogenetic tree built using DNA sequences, match a phylogenetic tree of the fossil record?

Once that question can be answered, the rest will have already fallen in place.

Aside from that, I believe in creation myself, but through natural means as you have described.  There is creationism that is young earth, instantaneous creationism, then there is creation via biological evolution and common descent.

Either way, all the best.  I recommend checking out other books on paleontology, such as those by Donald Prothero, or neil shubin or ken miller. Carl Sagan has good stuff. If you read dawkins, just keep in mind that it is written from a staunch anti religion point of view.  You will see that in his writing. If youre interested in some cheap geology books let me know. I know of some pretty good ones you can get for under 10 dollars.

Edited by iCambrian
Al Hadi likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iCambrian said:

Well, in regards to my post above, I will leave you with one question.

Why would a phylogenetic tree built using DNA sequences, match a phylogenetic tree of the fossil record?

Once that question can be answered, the rest will have already fallen in place.

Aside from that, I believe in creation myself, but through natural means as you have described.  There is creationism that is young earth, instantaneous creationism, then there is creation via biological evolution and common descent.

Either way, all the best.  I recommend checking out other books on paleontology, such as those by Donald Prothero, or neil shubin or ken miller. Carl Sagan has good stuff. If you read dawkins, just keep in mind that it is written from a staunch anti religion point of view.  You will see that in his writing. If youre interested in some cheap geology books let me know. I know of some pretty good ones you can get for under 10 dollars.

Ya DAwkins I feel if I can read his I will have read the most antireligious point of view and still have my views that's both a challenge then an achievement for me. Anyways I have to look at the phylogenetic tree thing you talk about.

Ill admit despite the anti evolution view I have I have to admit there are things that I cant answer like

#1 Male Nipples(y do we have them evolution makes a bit sense when it says they are vestigial I cant seem to find a use for them)

#2 Genetic marker that traces back to a tribe at around Ethiopia Africa. Kind of makes no sense that all humans have this genetic marker then when you go to this one tribe that I think my Darwinist biology teacher said are our ancestors. Then it makes sense that we evolved from them so that's another point evolution answers.

#3 Ill admit when I go to brain science a lot of it falls into place which is what actually sparked my interest in evolution first of all. Like we are addicted to junk food right? cause evolution says in our natural environment fat sugar and salt where rare in the environment evolution says we evolved to find these rare things important for our survival irresistibly enticing.

Also look here Gary Wilson the founder of the website uses evolution to prove why porn is so addictive  http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ To be honest I could answer all this with God wanted to make sure we were generally capable of surviving in the environment he created us in(I mean traditional creationism). But Its interesting still how it can be made to  kind of relates to other places in science.

 

However with my experience there is always another side. I really want to research and find the truth though even if its unpopular I think some Shia Muslim scholars even are ok with evolution. Shaheed Murtadha  Muttaharee said at one point even if evolution was true it only proves God's wisdom being able to create human beings through this intelligent system.

Edited by Al Hadi
iCambrian likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 26/12/2011 at 8:04 PM, HassanShia said:

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.

Since the keyword 'Any' was used, I'll explain why evolution is not in harmony with Islam. 

Just to start you off, the whole 'history' the Quran presents. The story of Adam and Eve begins in Heaven as you pointed, while humans evolved on this Earth. The story of Adam - universally agreed upon, might I add - involves a single Adam and a single Eve, this can't be possible as this would end up in incestuous relationships and demented children - clearly not the case today.

Another is the many fossils found which indicate the previous links between humans and other primates through their common ancestors.

You also need to take into consideration the 'variety' of humans across the globe. There are small eyes, large eyes; big noses and small ones; taller people and shorter; only in rare occurances, such as an identical twin or a doppelganger, would any human look alike. When we take Islam's 'history' it argues that the Son's of Noah - Shem and Ham - the former who was white and the latter who was black, are the reason for this variety.

Islam states that Noah lived 1000 years and Adam was 30 meters, both of which are scientifically improbable.

If it helps a bit, the Jews and non-fundemental Christians both believe that the history proposed by the two testaments is purely metaphorical. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On January 1, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Fish said:

Since the keyword 'Any' was used, I'll explain why evolution is not in harmony with Islam. 

Just to start you off, the whole 'history' the Quran presents. The story of Adam and Eve begins in Heaven as you pointed, while humans evolved on this Earth. The story of Adam - universally agreed upon, might I add - involves a single Adam and a single Eve, this can't be possible as this would end up in incestuous relationships and demented children - clearly not the case today.

Another is the many fossils found which indicate the previous links between humans and other primates through their common ancestors.

You also need to take into consideration the 'variety' of humans across the globe. There are small eyes, large eyes; big noses and small ones; taller people and shorter; only in rare occurances, such as an identical twin or a doppelganger, would any human look alike. When we take Islam's 'history' it argues that the Son's of Noah - Shem and Ham - the former who was white and the latter who was black, are the reason for this variety.

Islam states that Noah lived 1000 years and Adam was 30 meters, both of which are scientifically improbable.

If it helps a bit, the Jews and non-fundemental Christians both believe that the history proposed by the two testaments is purely metaphorical. 

 

I see a lot of people doing this. If Christianity/Islam then not evolution, or if evolution then not christianity/Islam.

scriptures of religion were written thousands of years ago. They're attempts of mankind in describing something beyond ourselves. 

Science too is an ever proceeding attempt at understanding things that are beyond us.

You can't take subjective literature, and turn it into an objective "this scripture is/means X".

Scripture and science, ultimately having subjective traits, gives people the freedom to interpret and consider novel ideas about each. To the extent that science and religion are not mutually exclusive unless you choose to believe that they are.

islam and evolution are not in opposition to eachother, no more than Christianity and evolution. And there are many Muslims and Christians like myself, who are comfortable supporting the the theory of evolution, while still appreciating Sunday service.

 

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.