Jump to content
Ali-F

The human fetus is like the fetus of a chicken!

Recommended Posts

Salaam

 

Look at this picture.

SciAniAnat1-14c.gif

 

 

The fetus of the human (homo sapiens) is just like the fetus of the above mentioned animals. 

I wonder: How can we reply back to this? Meaning, people may say: "This is a proof that we and the ape had a common ancestor".

I find this difficult to understand.

And likewise the fact that 99% of the human DNA is like the chimpanzee. 

Edited by Ali-F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ali-F said:

Salaam

 

Look at this picture.

SciAniAnat1-14c.gif

 

 

The fetus of the human (homo sapiens) is just like the fetus of the above mentioned animals. 

I wonder: How can we reply back to this? Meaning, people may say: "This is a proof that we and the ape had a common ancestor".

I find this difficult to understand.

And likewise the fact that 99% of the human DNA is like the chimpanzee. 

Their argument is basically, similarity= common ancestor. What they fail to understand is that similarity= similar biological function =/ common ancestor. There is no logical reason to conclude that just because organisms share similar function and thus physiology that they should share similar origins.

Let us say for example that God revealed to everyone the world that he exists, and that he created all human life without any means of macro Evolution. We would still find that humans are closer to other animals more than others simply due logic that there are degrees of differentiation, some more, some less, and even in a world were Atheists are wrong humans will still have resemblance to other animals, especially if there is similarity of function there will be similarity of physiology. 

What they have to argue is vestigial organs exist, non-functional DNA markers exist between chimps and humans for example the DNA retro virus, they'd have to show us stuff like that for us to accept their conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People fail to recognize the obvious.  Even with the most clear signs, people still deny that we are part of the animal kingdom...

The human body, is no exception to the reality of biological evolution. We contain the genes of our ancestors, and the physical features of our ancestors as well. 

Only the heavily religious and conservative, could doubt what is blatantly clear.

 

Here's an old topic of mine. Feel free to check it out!

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234989658-the-theory-of-evolution/#comment-2199957

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daD37TsscvU

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

It is a discussion about the theory of evolution, that is what I replied with. 

In the end, youre fighting a loosing battle Abu.  I enjoy watching the science deniers dwindle with time...

Hello Icambrian, I hope you're in good health.

I have no problem accepting the theory of Evolution if its true, it does not contradict the Qur'an nor our hadith, it just doesn't have any convincing arguments. Vestigial organs, retro virus DNA markers, Teleomere chromosome fusion, I've heard it all and none of these arguments have any moving power.

Not to mention that protein science completely annihilates the idea of RM+NS to create novel proteins, so much so that many protein scientists actually deny the Darwinian model more than any group and actually opt for an alternative routes in many papers I've read, I wonder why?

It does contradict the bible however, I wonder how you twist and flip genesis to remain a Christian?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Maybe to you, you are not convinced.  To each their own.

And I can twist and flip Christianity just as you can twist and flip stories about the moon splitting.

I never had to twist that, the moon was made to appear split to those who saw it. Whats so weird about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as you can interpret scripture in one way, I can do so as well.  This isnt a discussion about the subjective nature of scripture though, so im going to move on. If you would like to discuss the subjective nature of scripture, i would be happy to join a topic if you made one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

Just as you can interpret scripture in one way, I can do so as well.  This isnt a discussion about the subjective nature of scripture though, so im going to move on. If you would like to discuss the subjective nature of scripture, i would be happy to join a topic if you made one.

I'm not trying to insult you.

But you have to admit, its kind of impossible to reconcile evolution with the genesis story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Abu-Jafar Herz said:

it just doesn't have any convincing arguments. Vestigial organs, retro virus DNA markers, Teleomere chromosome fusion, I've heard it all and none of these arguments have any moving power.

 

By this do you mean the Theory of Evolution could be wrong? 

It would be very interesting to read your alternative 'convincing arguments' (hopefully as clear and as testable)   that better match the available evidence and would replace the theory of evolution. 

Do you have any alternative convincing arguments? 

wslm

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you teach me Darwinism? Specifically, when during the evolution of the cells did (a) some of them decide to become plants and grow roots instead of evolving into the animal kingdom (I'm guessing they got stuck in mud for too long?), and (b) when and at what stage did the evolved groups of cells decide to grow different genitalia and that there should be men and women and so forth. I mean when and at what stage as in the first time ever.

Thanks.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Quisant said:

By this do you mean the Theory of Evolution could be wrong? 

It would be very interesting to read your alternative 'convincing arguments' (hopefully as clear and as testable)   that better match the available evidence and would replace the theory of evolution. 

Do you have any alternative convincing arguments? 

wslm

*

Me and iCambrian had a huge debate regarding this, go ahead and read the thread my name back then was Ibn-ahmed aliyy herz. 

Once you read and understand what we were debating about, come back and ask me that question.

If you don't want to do that, then give me an example of a protein part which is 50 or less AA long becoming 200 AA long via natural selection and random mutation with a new function. Search as much as you want I promise you, you will never find it. 

They only thing they came up with so far is the duplication and recombination of genes leading to multi-functional proteins, which doesn't answer the question at all.

Many protein scientists themselves have raised the question whether or not RM+NS can create novel protein function.

Edited by Abu-Jafar Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Quisant said:

By this do you mean the Theory of Evolution could be wrong? 

It would be very interesting to read your alternative 'convincing arguments' (hopefully as clear and as testable)   that better match the available evidence and would replace the theory of evolution. 

Do you have any alternative convincing arguments? 

wslm

*

A note ill make,

In todays time, there are few if any, experts in any field of science that do not recognize truth in common descent of mankind and other animals.

I take the example of Michael Behe.  A staunch creationist, a leading figure of the largest scientific creationist movement that has ever been, and an expert in microbiology with advanced research relating to the theory of evolution. 

Even Michael Behe, recognizes truth in common descent between mankind, other apes and other lifeforms.

Regardless of what people believe about the Dover trials, even if we were to have views as his are, at most, we would only be troubled by "some" of the biomolecular processes that drive darwinian evolution.

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

Not even Michael Behe, would look at the fetus of a turtle, chicken, fish and human, and say that the similarities (and differences) are not due to relatedness in ancestors.

So, anyone can bicker all they want here on a religious forum.  But in the end, the theory of evolution, even if someone doesnt accept it as the 100% full explanation behind common descent, still holds much truth and provides great insight into the origins of mankind and other life forms.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Quisant said:

By this do you mean the Theory of Evolution could be wrong? 

It would be very interesting to read your alternative 'convincing arguments' (hopefully as clear and as testable)   that better match the available evidence and would replace the theory of evolution. 

Do you have any alternative convincing arguments? 

wslm

*

And as for this, there are no alternative explanations. 

Common descent of lifeforms, including mankind is just too clear and obvious to anyone who is remotely familiar with the evidence. 

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


×