Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
iSilurian

The Theory Of Evolution

Recommended Posts

It is DNA sequencing of the ribosomal RNA of bacteria. 

 

The 16S rRNA gene is used for phylogenetic studies as it is highly conserved between different species of bacteria and archaea.

 

Ah ok, cool.  May I ask how you do that? How do you sequence DNA, or how do you use/do DNA sequencing of RNA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah ok, cool.  May I ask how you do that? How do you sequence DNA, or how do you use/do DNA sequencing of RNA?

 

You extract the DNA from the samples, ie destroy or degrade proteins and lipids from the cell. You then purify the DNA that remains by reducing volume.

 

Then you set up PCR reactions to amplify the DNA that encodes for the ribsomal RNA. Then you use sequencers to read the amplicons.

 

This is a cool link: http://res.illumina.com/documents/products/appnotes/appnote_miseq_16s.pdf

 

Then you use computers to assign the sequences to known bacteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To more properly address your quote, there are people on here who still depend on arguments from incredulity, of the form  "I can't believe P happened, therefore not-P."

To allow for "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution" or to allow for "artificial selection" but not "natural selection" misses the point because many of the same mechanisms are at play in both.

 

Cosmos%20Tree%20of%20Life%20Cropped.jpg

That is the tree of life from the show Cosmos. Yes, the fossil record is profound, but so is the DNA evidence. I mean, 16S sequencing and taxonomy assignment depends on creating a tree of life based on evolutionary analyses. It's what I do for a living, and yet people deny evolution and protest using all sorts of contrived reasons. 

 

So, brother, you are a microbiologist.

 

Are you able to reconcile the theory of evolution with Adam & Eve? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Islam doesn't have trouble fitting evolution into its' theological framework like Christianity does.

 

Sorry, brother,  could you please explain that a little.

 

According to the theory of evolution, we have all evolved.

 

But according to the Adam-Eve theory, we have been created.

 

Could you please explain how you reconcile the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, brother,  could you please explain that a little.

 

According to the theory of evolution, we have all evolved.

 

But according to the Adam-Eve theory, we have been created.

 

Could you please explain how you reconcile the two.

 

Neo-darwinists say we came from one cell, but Islamic traditions of Adam and Eve can be slightly adjusted, such that the fossil apes or neanderthals, homo erectus etc can be "pre-Adam" and Homo Sapiens can represent when human bodies gained a soul (ie in Adam's time). 

Evolution is a process and we don't need to disbelieve in science to believe in Islam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homo Sapiens can represent when human bodies gained a soul (ie in Adam's time). 

 

That may be evolution's way of looking at it.

 

But according to Islam, Adam cam to earth as a full-blown adult.     I doubt if this fact can be reconciled with evolution.

 

Evolution is a process and we don't need to disbelieve in science to believe in Islam. 

 

Of course not.  

 

I am sure a reconciliation between Islam and science is possible, but if so, it should be very clear - not based on a whole lot of possible maybes.

 

And one more question :-

 

It seems  that it is much more difficult to test evolution in comparison to the laws of physics or even other facts of biology. Because evolution is a process that takes millions of years.

 

What experimental evidence do we have of evolution?  How has it been tested?

 

Or is it still just a theory? 

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That may be evolution's way of looking at it.

 

But according to Islam, Adam cam to earth as a full-blown adult.     I doubt if this fact can be reconciled with evolution.

 

Well, the Quran is not a long historical document like the Bible. The Quran doesn't go into great detail on many stories (The Story of Yusuf and Musa (possibly Lut) being notable exceptions).

 

In any case, I don't see how Adam being a full-blown adult affects the process of evolution. What about Adam and Eve only having two male children? Doesn't that suggest to you the Quranic story is not highly detailed?

EDIT: I just looked it up, and it seems that At-Tabari says that Adam and Eve produced 240 children, which is 120 sets of fraternal twins. I am not aware of the Shia view on how many children Adam and Eve had.

 

 

I am sure a reconciliation between Islam and science is possible, but if so, it should be very clear - not based on a whole lot of possible maybes.

 

Unfortunately, the nature of science is a whole bunch of maybes(hypotheses) that slowly becomes yes's after evidence piles up.(theories)

 

It seems  that it is much more difficult to test evolution in comparison to the laws of physics or even other facts of biology. Because evolution is a process that takes millions of years.

 

What experimental evidence do we have of evolution?  How has it been tested?

 

Our good friend Dawkins once said that working in evolutionary biology is like being a detective at the scene of a crime, and no one is a direct witness, and no one wrote anything down at that time period. So yes, by definition it is difficult to test evolution.

 

All that can be tested is that creatures change their forms slightly between generations, and traits that benefit the organism spread throughout the population. Since we don't have thousands of years to observe animals, we are forced to extrapolate out these findings to say that all animals have a common ancestor. 

I really like this example:

 

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

 

It suggests that wolves and foxes that lived during the time of early humans had the genes to become cute little dogs when the genes that relate to tameness were selected for.

 

And yes, they are still the same "kind" of animal, because dogs don't give birth to cats or birds don't lay eggs that give rise to fish. It is an incredibly gradual process, but evolution is currently scientist's best guess, a guess that is supported by both fossil and DNA evidence.

Edited by EthidiumIodide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In any case, I don't see how Adam being a full-blown adult affects the process of evolution. 

 

I am not a biologist, so please correct me if I am wrong. 

 

If my information is correct, the theory of evolution postulates that the first creature was a micro-organism. So a full-blown and developed beginning does not seem to tie with the theory of evolution.

 

Doesn't that suggest to you the Quranic story is not highly detailed?

 

 

You are right the but the Quran was not intended to be a history book.

 

I am interested to find out how the Adam-Eve scenario fits in with the theory of evolution. 

 

Not the other way round.

 

if the Quran and other existing material, such a hadeeth, are not sufficient to prove the link reconciling Islam with evolution, then there is no link.

 

And it will not be correct to say that there is no contradiction between Islam and evolution.

 

I just looked it up, and it seems that At-Tabari says that Adam and Eve produced 240 children, which is 120 sets of fraternal twins. I am not aware of the Shia view on how many children Adam and Eve had.

 

 

Even if the Shia view is different, it does not explain what I am after.

 

Unfortunately, the nature of science is a whole bunch of maybes(hypotheses) that slowly becomes yes's after evidence piles up.(theories)

 

To me, this type of evidence is not good enough. I know evolution cannot be tested like other theories in science. But the evidence usually given is not good enough for me. It is extremely un-mathematical which means it is not good enough.

 

 I am not looking for mathematical evidence like physics theories but all I hear is Dawkins and his ilk say - we have evidence.

 

I am not quite happy with that sort of evidence.

 

Dawkins et all seem to be saying  - believe us we know what we are talking about.

 

That is not good enough.   

 

Our good friend Dawkins once said that working in evolutionary biology is like being a detective at the scene of a crime, and no one is a direct witness, and no one wrote anything down at that time period. So yes, by definition it is difficult to test evolution.

 

 

Dawkins is not our good friend.

 

His evidence is actually proof against the theory.

 

As an avowed enemy of God, it is in his interest to push for evolution.

 

It suggests that wolves and foxes that lived during the time of early humans had the genes to become cute little dogs when the genes that relate to tameness were selected for.

 

'Suggests' is very different from 'definitely is'.

 

Sorry, brother

 

But I am extremely interested in proof for evolution.

 

I am writing an article for a Shia publication and I need proof. 

 

Thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I am extremely interested in proof for evolution.

I am writing an article for a Shia publication and I need proof.

I'm sure EthidiumIodide can provide more information, I'm not a biologist either, but there were these white moths in England. During the early days of the industrial revolution, soot covered their trees. Moths with a grey genetic mutation survived. Later, pollution reduction regulations were imposed, and the grey moths vanished and the white returned.

Species adapting to survive in a changing environment is evolution.

If you are asking for proof that ALL species came about through evolution, I suspect you will not find it. There is strong circumstantial evidence, but I know of no proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Species adapting to survive in a changing environment is evolution.

 

What you call species adapting to survive  a changing environment is to other people nothing more than God's ingenious design. 

 

Moths with a grey genetic mutation survived. Later, pollution reduction regulations were imposed, and the grey moths vanished and the white returned.

 

So ?

 

There is strong circumstantial evidence, but I know of no proof.

 

Circumstantial evidence has sent millions of people to the death chamber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not a biologist, so please correct me if I am wrong. 
 
If my information is correct, the theory of evolution postulates that the first creature was a micro-organism. So a full-blown and developed beginning does not seem to tie with the theory of evolution
 
..
 
I am interested to find out how the Adam-Eve scenario fits in with the theory of evolution. 

 

You are correct. But the Quran saying that a fully-grown man coming from the sky cannot hold any bearing on the scientific method, as the Quranic story is unprecedented and there is no evidence in the fossil record for human beings appearing all of a sudden, when a slow gradation is what actually appears.

 

As such, in its' current state, Adam and Eve does not fit with evolution. Two humans coming from heaven and populating the earth is surely not supported by science. But it has never been the goal of science to take anything as 100% true and try to twist their theories around it. This is most likely the crux of your issue.

 

 

if the Quran and other existing material, such a hadeeth, are not sufficient to prove the link reconciling Islam with evolution, then there is no link.

 
And it will not be correct to say that there is no contradiction between Islam and evolution.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234940450-adams-before-hazrat-adam-as/

 

"Before this Adam, there were a thousand thousand Adams." By Imam Jafar Sadiq

-Bihar Al Anwar, Volume 2, Part (Baa, as in the second letter of the Arabic Alphabet)

 

Dawkins is not our friend.

I was being sarcastic about him being our friend as I know how he is viewed.

 

His evidence is actually proof against the theory.

 

This is an incoherent statement. Is it impossible for an atheist to be correct, or will he need to take shahada before you are able to listen?

 

To me, this type of evidence is not good enough. I know evolution cannot be tested like other theories in science. But the evidence usually given is not good enough for me. It is extremely un-mathematical which means it is not good enough.

 

 
I guess you can't love or hold trust in anyone then. 
 

 

Sorry, brother

 
But I am extremely interested in proof for evolution.
 
I am writing an article for a Shia publication and I need proof. 

 

Well, I would advise you to go out and actually read about evolution from biologists and those who have spent their lives studying it, rather than excusing yourself from real responsibility by saying you are not a biologist, and then leaving veiled hints throughout your diatribe that suggest your mind is actually already made up about evolution. It's not up to me or anyone else to make a horse drink when they are led to water. 

 

This is enough evidence for me: http://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

What you call species adapting to survive  a changing environment is to other people nothing more than God's ingenious design. 

 

This is also called natural selection. 

 

 

So ?

 

That is selection on alleles via the environment, the very definition of natural selection.

 

Circumstantial evidence has sent millions of people to the death chamber.

 

 

I agree, evolution is Nazism too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you call species adapting to survive a changing environment is to other people nothing more than God's ingenious design.

Yes. Designing to evolve is indeed ingenious.

Circumstantial evidence has sent millions of people to the death chamber.

Ok. Are you asking to be provided with the evidence? As I stated, I'm also not an expert. You have as much access to information as I. I am willing to concede that it can not be proven that all species evolved from a common origin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

 

 

I for one do not know much about Evolution, but I think the following may be of some benefit to the thread: 

 

 

Ws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Is it impossible for an atheist to be correct, or will he need to take shahada before you are able to listen?

 

No, that is  not what I meant.  Most scientists in the modern world are atheists anyway. 

 

What I meant was atheists have good reason to prove evolution right.

 

With evolution proved, it is probably easier to reject God.

 

 

I will read that article and get back to you.

 

If that article is convincing, I would have expected something on those lines  in Dawkins' 'The God Delusion'.

 

But I didn't.

 

You have as much access to information as I. I am willing to concede that it can not be proven that all species evolved from a common origin.

 

Thanks for that.

 

Apparently I might need to read more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am primarily interested not so much in proving or disproving evolution rather in finding out how satisfactorily can evolution be reconciled with Islam. 


If the answer is 'yes', whether it is possible for a non-biologist  to explain the reconsiliation to the general public.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You extract the DNA from the samples, ie destroy or degrade proteins and lipids from the cell. You then purify the DNA that remains by reducing volume.

 

Then you set up PCR reactions to amplify the DNA that encodes for the ribsomal RNA. Then you use sequencers to read the amplicons.

 

This is a cool link: http://res.illumina.com/documents/products/appnotes/appnote_miseq_16s.pdf

 

Then you use computers to assign the sequences to known bacteria.

 

Ah makes sense :P haha

 

Isilurian googles word for word to figure out whats going on*

Ill just add my own personal commentary.

 

People, in a sense, are made from the earth.  Whether it is Adam and Eve, or we are talking about ancient precambrian prokaryotes.  Where did our elements come from?  They came from the earth, from the sun which created them before releasing them to the universe. 

 

I dont know if...people with a general view of Islamic scripture and knowledge of science would understand, but for those who do understand, it does seem quite clear that, the Quran and Science can fit together well, and actually the two can do so with multiple interpretations for either or.

 

Also, Ill just point out that, the brother posting above, asked a question.  Then essentially denied the answer he was given.  He is not genuinely asking questions, theyre loaded, and he is here to debate.

 

So, rather than playing games, we can outright have a discussion if parties are willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bump

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

 

 

I for one do not know much about Evolution, but I think the following may be of some benefit to the thread: 

 

 

Ws.

 

This is a good lecture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering: Can we take our knowledge from a sunni? For instance; Nourman Ali Khan.

Yes. There is no harm in that, provided that it does not conflict with our teachings. Shiek Al-Mufeed(ra) learned from Sunnis, specifically the Mu'tazila.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EthidiumIodide can you show me an example of a random mutation upon a gene that actually improved the protein part associated with it? Your first response is that genetic engineering mimicked the exact conditions of random mutations and natural selection, I think that this is wrong and is irrelevant to what we are seeking.

 

One of the biggest pieces of evidence against the theory that many Evolutionists are not currently able to answer or commonly say "we will get an answer in the future" is the fact that protein folds are extremely isolated in sequence space, in that a vast majority of sequences do not translate into a properly folded protein.

 

 

It has been observed again and again that when you randomly mutate a protein to the point where it is distanced from it's original sequence chances are it will become unfoldable and collapse.

 

This is one of many issues that have not been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EthidiumIodide can you show me an example of a random mutation upon a gene that actually improved the protein part associated with it? Your first response is that genetic engineering mimicked the exact conditions of random mutations and natural selection, I think that this is wrong and is irrelevant to what we are seeking.

 

 

 

 

"the fact that protein folds are extremely isolated in sequence space, in that a vast majority of sequences do not translate into a properly folded protein."

 

Are you talking about a random ordering of amino acids or small variations off of a functional protein? There is a massive difference. Any random ordering of amino acids is most likely not functional, but that doesn't say anything about evolution in any way.

 

 

 

It has been observed again and again that when you randomly mutate a protein to the point where it is distanced from it's original sequence chances are it will become unfoldable and collapse.

 

What is your definition of "distance"? How many mutations were added before the protein's activity was tested? Where are the variations located on the protein? All of these things are essential to forming a proper response.

 

See, evolution has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about. You think the concept of mutation is some sort of hammer against a car engine, where you just knock a hole in the engine, and if you knock enough holes in it, the engine won't work anymore. 

 

Think of what we are talking about as "changing screw sizes". Some screws fit better, some are way too small and destabilize the engine, some don't fit at all, etc. And some screws are so similar to the original screw the engine doesn't even notice.

 

So all this talk of "sequence space" and "unfolding" and the like misses the entire point, as if evolutionists are claiming that Nature destroys proteins with devastating mutations and somehow this destruction actually makes proteins better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you talking about a random ordering of amino acids or small variations off of a functional protein? There is a massive difference. Any random ordering of amino acids is most likely not functional, but that doesn't say anything about evolution in any way.

 

 

Firstly your video didn't answer my question.

 

Secondly regarding this statement, what are you talking about? I was actually very clear with the words I chose that involves protein science, you shouldn't have been confused or even asked me that question.

 

I was not speaking about a random order of amino acids as they will not be functional and are irrelevant.

 

Sequence vs structure space is vastly isolated, so much so that there are said to only be about around 2000 protein family that are similar in structure and in DNA sequence.

 

 

Let us say that we have a protein part that is 50 AA long, would it be possible by random mutation to increase that 50 AA protein part from it's starting point to a protein that is 200 AA by preserving minimum steps via natural selection?

 

Let us say in our path to get to the 200 AA the first minimum step to be preserved is from a 50AA to a 70 AA  protein, what would be needed?

 

Many Evolutionists who have not studied in the field or protein science would assume that the original 50 AA protein is preserved and the 20 amino acids are simply added unto the protein part, however this is wrong due to the fact that original structures cannot be preserved and have additions to it without also changing the position of the original 50AA.

 

So the minimum step is not just "adding 20 AA", it is actually an entire reworking via random mutation of the entire protein that is 70AA long (natural selection has no role in this yet, it only preserves and propagates already existing traits)

 

 

This is actually one of the biggest question marks in the current working theory of Evolution and no one has an answer for it, and many scientists are actually looking for an alternative to the RM/NS dogma. Also I have not said anything that contradicts the scientific community as they also agree this is a huge problem.

 

 

 

 

 
What is your definition of "distance"? How many mutations were added before the protein's activity was tested? Where are the variations located on the protein? All of these things are essential to forming a proper response.
 
See, evolution has NOTHING to do with what you are talking about. You think the concept of mutation is some sort of hammer against a car engine, where you just knock a hole in the engine, and if you knock enough holes in it, the engine won't work anymore. 
 
Think of what we are talking about as "changing screw sizes". Some screws fit better, some are way too small and destabilize the engine, some don't fit at all, etc. And some screws are so similar to the original screw the engine doesn't even notice.
 
So all this talk of "sequence space" and "unfolding" and the like misses the entire point, as if evolutionists are claiming that Nature destroys proteins with devastating mutations and somehow this destruction actually makes proteins better.

 

 

 

Actually evolution has everything to do with what I am talking about.

 

Please spare me the "I will teach you, you have misconceptions" attitude, I am aware of the Evolutionists arguments and I understand how their theory works.

Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly your video didn't answer my question.

 

It did. This video exhibited "natural" mutations that are beneficial which is exactly what you requested. But as expected, it did not seem to phase you one bit. You did not challenge anything in the video and you simply say "not good enough". It seems like you will move the goalposts as you see fit.

 

But let's talk some more, shall we?

 
First, I did not fully discuss your last post.
 
Your first response is that genetic engineering mimicked the exact conditions of random mutations and natural selection, I think that this is wrong and is irrelevant to what we are seeking.

 

I have showed evidence that proteins can be improved in the lab in post 140 and 145 of this thread.
 
 
In response, you started using terminology from the web pages improperly, trying to sow doubt in what I was saying, saying these traits are "too simple" and "irrelevant". For example:
 
This mutation is not completely random in that specific proteins and regions are targeted for mutation, also the origin of these traits are not novel, they are simply recombined or expressed more from already existing traits.

 

 
As if your contention had any bearing on the fact that it is possible to improve proteins(using random mutations produced by error-prone DNA copying enzymes), which refutes this quote:
 
Can you show me an example of a random mutation upon a gene that actually improved the protein part associated with it?  

 

 
To repeat, the mutations in Directed Evolution experiments ARE random. We have no control over what mutations are introduced. We only have control over the phenotype (that is, improved enzymatic actvity). And that fulfills your requirements. 
 
Sequence vs structure space is vastly isolated, so much so that there are said to only be about around 2000 protein family that are similar in structure and in DNA sequence.
 
I am glad you are reading textbooks, but what is your point? This is a red herring. Think about how many possible structures there are. I am not at all shocked that there are only 2000 protein families. But that still doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that is impossible for a "protein part" to be improved. I have refuted that 2 or 3 separate times. But I should know better than argue with someone who has protested against evolution through 14 pages and still does not seem to have picked anything up.
 

Let us say that we have a protein part that is 50 AA long, would it be possible by random mutation to increase that 50 AA protein part from it's starting point to a protein that is 200 AA by preserving minimum steps via natural selection?

 

Let us say in our path to get to the 200 AA the first minimum step to be preserved is from a 50AA to a 70 AA  protein, what would be needed?

 

Many Evolutionists who have not studied in the field or protein science would assume that the original 50 AA protein is preserved and the 20 amino acids are simply added unto the protein part, however this is wrong due to the fact that original structures cannot be preserved and have additions to it without also changing the position of the original 50AA.

 

So the minimum step is not just "adding 20 AA", it is actually an entire reworking via random mutation of the entire protein that is 70AA long (natural selection has no role in this yet, it only preserves and propagates already existing traits)

 

Why would a protein arbitrarily lengthen 20 amino acids? What advantage would this have?  This seems like the opposite of evolution if I understand your argument. 

 

Do you have a paper that shows the necessity of a protein needing to quadruple in size? Or any sort of literature on this?

 

This is actually one of the biggest question marks in the current working theory of Evolution and no one has an answer for it, and many scientists are actually looking for an alternative to the RM/NS dogma.

 

Hmm, now that you mention it, there was a paper released a few months ago that adds codon bias to RM/NS. Not everyone is purely neo-darwinian. 

 

https://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6164/1325.summary

 

By the way, if there is actually a hole in the theory(no one has an answer), it doesn't automatically make any other theory automatically correct. 

 

Please spare me the "I will teach you, you have misconceptions" attitude, I am aware of the Evolutionists arguments and I understand how their theory works.

 

If a typical online atheist came to Shiachat and started sending us Quran "contradictions" and mis-represented hadith, proclaiming Islam to be "debunked", one of the first things you would say to him or her would be "You have a lot of misconceptions. You are not a scholar of Islam nor do you know classical Arabic, therefore you are in no position to be giving your opinion on Islamic beliefs". 
 
But all of a sudden, any human with an internet connection (Sheikh Google) can refute evolution, and it's so easy! No degree or biology classes necessary. All that you need is conviction(faith?) that you are right, and the facts will come to you.
Edited by EthidiumIodide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It did. This video exhibited "natural" mutations that are beneficial which is exactly what you requested. But as expected, it did not seem to phase you one bit. You did not challenge anything in the video and you simply say "not good enough". It seems like you will move the goalposts as you see fit.
 
But let's talk some more, shall we?
 

 

 

Forget the video, I want you to debate me on the subject yourself. :)

 

 

I have showed evidence that proteins can be improved in the lab in post 140 and 145 of this thread.
 
 

 

 

You didn't prove anything and I already answered you in that thread, I'll explain more in the bottom why your example is flawed and does not prove anything.

 

 

 

In response, you started using terminology from the web pages improperly, trying to sow doubt in what I was saying, saying these traits are "too simple" and "irrelevant". For example:

 

As if your contention had any bearing on the fact that it is possible to improve proteins(using random mutations produced by error-prone DNA copying enzymes), which refutes this quote:

 

 

 

Simple controlled modifications and artificial selection of these modified proteins in a scientist controlled environment is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the topic and the fact that you are simply trying to push this idea by the route that the actual mutations are random highlights your misunderstanding. You're trying to prove that simple increases in catalytic activity in an artificial environment refutes what I'm saying, it doesn't at all.

 

The mutations are random yes, but this isn't the point. The mutations themselves are irrelevant stepping stones to what we see in life today as the limit of change with in the proteins themselves are still present,, not to mention that natural selection is missing here and is replaced by the scientist.

 

 

To repeat, the mutations in Directed Evolution experiments ARE random. We have no control over what mutations are introduced. We only have control over the phenotype (that is, improved enzymatic actvity). And that fulfills your requirements. 

 

 

Already answered above, and I'm glad you admit that directed evolution does not mimic natural evolution.

 

 

I am glad you are reading textbooks, but what is your point? This is a red herring. Think about how many possible structures there are. I am not at all shocked that there are only 2000 protein families. But that still doesn't have anything to do with your assertion that is impossible for a "protein part" to be improved. I have refuted that 2 or 3 separate times. But I should know better than argue with someone who has protested against evolution through 14 pages and still does not seem to have picked anything up.

 

 

The fact that you just said this proves to me you don't know what you're talking about.

 

The structures are indeed many, however the sequence space between these structures are very much different and distanced in sequence, and the limit to the number of protein families is also related to this.

 

 

Why would a protein arbitrarily lengthen 20 amino acids? What advantage would this have?  This seems like the opposite of evolution if I understand your argument. 
 
Do you have a paper that shows the necessity of a protein needing to quadruple in size? Or any sort of literature on this?

 

 

Not to insult you but do you know what you're talking about?

 

If we have a protein strand that is 200 AA long, do you think the 200 AA length protein formed over time or that it  actually originated as 200 AA length long as it was?

 

If you say that it formed over time then obviously asking the question of what would be the requirements for a 50AA length protein to go to a 70AA length is logically necessary, or from 50 to 80, or from 50 to 55, or whatever minimum you desire to choose then it is an obviously necessary question.

 

You are asking for a paper on something that is so fundamental that it's laughable no offense.

 

If a typical online atheist came to Shiachat and started sending us Quran "contradictions" and mis-represented hadith, proclaiming Islam to be "debunked", one of the first things you would say to him or her would be "You have a lot of misconceptions. You are not a scholar of Islam nor do you know classical Arabic, therefore you are in no position to be giving your opinion on Islamic beliefs". 
 
But all of a sudden, any human with an internet connection (Sheikh Google) can refute evolution, and it's so easy! No degree or biology classes necessary. All that you need is conviction(faith?) that you are right, and the facts will come to you.
 

 

 

You speak about being educated on subjects before speaking about them, but honestly from your responses you have lost credit with me for your understanding on the subject.

 

 

 

 

 
Edited by Ibn-Ahmed Aliyy Herz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

Ethidium and Herz

 

If it's no intrusion, could you please tell me as to your academic qualifications?

 

This will help me appreciate your views, whereas without this, I would not be able to differentiate either of you from a pseudo-scientist.

 

The first prerequisite of discussing a theory is understanding the concepts it involves, and, as a rule which may admit exceptions, somebody academically trained under experts is a head and shoulder above one who is not so.

 

If you have both studied this subject academically, the degree to which you have studied it might also shed light.

 

As a rule which again may admit exceptions, a Doctor has absorbed far more reading and has thought more clearly about issues than a Bachelor.

 

Of course, if you don't wish to disclose, then I won't ask further. 

 

(wasalam)

 

There is a difference between knowledge and the application of knowledge, 

 

A person can have a bachelor's degree in biology and debate someone who is a doctor in it and destroy him if the principles and arguments of which his arguments relies upon are superior.

 

Likewise a priest who is well studied in Catholicism can still be defeated by a non-catholic when it comes to the authenticity of Christianity, no one denies this yet the priest is still more educated on the subject. 

 

If you still want us to disclose this information then I don't mind at all, but I think it is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a book I heard was one of the best books in response to atheism. It deals with evolution, creation, among other never-ending debates between theism and atheism. The books is called ''Wahm al ilhad'' or ''The Atheism Delusion'' written by Ahmed al-Hassan. I haven't read it yet, but I'll try to buy it somewhere soon. 

 

Edited by robbenmessi1010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ill weight in here.

 

For herz, you should lessen the number of insults youre dishing out, they dont help anyone.

 

Anyway, I think the cosmos guys responses were adequate. I dont see why Directed evolution isnt directly comparable to evolution anywhere else.  Its not like the mutations are being created by people.

 

Also I dont see why an additional amino acid would somehow offset or alter the all other amino acids of a protein.

 

For the person who posted above, as a rule of thumb, i would generally try to avoid listening to heavily religious people on topics like this. Not that they always dont know what theyre talking about, but its almost the equivelant of asking a Sunni scholar to describe and teach Shia fiqh.  It just doesnt work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose ill weight in here.

 

For herz, you should lessen the number of insults youre dishing out, they dont help anyone.

 

Anyway, I think the cosmos guys responses were adequate. I dont see why Directed evolution isnt directly comparable to evolution anywhere else.  Its not like the mutations are being created by people.

 

Also I dont see why an additional amino acid would somehow offset or alter the all other amino acids of a protein.

 

For the person who posted above, as a rule of thumb, i would generally try to avoid listening to heavily religious people on topics like this. Not that they always dont know what theyre talking about, but its almost the equivelant of asking a Sunni scholar to describe and teach Shia fiqh.  It just doesnt work.

 

Actually anyone who can read this thread will see that I was very polite until ethidi started being condescending, so I simply said that he/she doesn't know what he/she is talking about, and I'm not saying this randomly or to be mean but honestly how can someone ask me the questions that they asked and have studied evolutionary biology at the same time? Again not to insult but this is the truth.

 

 

Regarding your repetition upon the fact that the mutations are random, yes, I understand this, but this isn't the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jebreil: I have a B.S. in Biological Engineering from the US. I have been doing a lot of biology reading that challenged my beliefs over the past year, and I have come to the conclusions you will see below.

 

I am of the opinion that you think that if you call my posts "irrelevant", the burden of refuting me is somehow removed. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. 

 

I can't sit here and add quotes for hours when you just ignore what I am saying. I am just going to bold my responses. And yes, my sabr is wearing thin. 

 

If you want to discuss, let's discuss one thing.

 

I think there is ZERO difference between the molecular mechanisms of artificial and natural selection. The only macro-scale difference is intelligence in artificial and the environment and mutation in natural. Simply because you can't fathom this fact is not a refutation.

 

So I want you to use some literature (or even websites) to try to refute what I just said, rather than letting your "common sense" and your obvious biases run free. 

 

 

Forget the video, I want you to debate me on the subject yourself. :)

 

Yep. It's clear you make a living on this forum by ignoring what people tell you. Yes, we are debating. But i use references and you use your "logic and common sense". It is obvious who is more objective. 

 

You didn't prove anything and I already answered you in that thread, I'll explain more in the bottom why your example is flawed and does not prove anything.

 

Alright.

 

Simple controlled modifications and artificial selection of these modified proteins in a scientist controlled environment is absolutely and utterly irrelevant to the topic and the fact that you are simply trying to push this idea by the route that the actual mutations are random highlights your misunderstanding. You're trying to prove that simple increases in catalytic activity in an artificial environment refutes what I'm saying, it doesn't at all.

 

The mutations are random yes, but this isn't the point. The mutations themselves are irrelevant stepping stones to what we see in life today as the limit of change with in the proteins themselves are still present,, not to mention that natural selection is missing here and is replaced by the scientist.

 

You can't even stick to one point. How can you claim to have such a profound understanding of evolutionary theory? 

You asked for a protein that was "improved" by mutation. And now you are changing the subject and trying to muddy the waters. It's a typical tactic by people who only know enough to make a lot of sound and fury.

 

Let's slow down for a second.

 

You asked for a protein that was improved by mutation. The video I linked and directed evolution are examples of "improved" proteins. But all of a sudden, that WASN'T what you were looking for. Now you say that it's all irrelevant and you need to see MORE. You never asked for more until now. So concede that you were proven wrong (on this point) and we can continue.

 

I see no difference between a scientist applying selective pressure and the environment. You are suggesting that only "intelligence" can affect proteins and only artificial selection can do anything. Please define intelligence if this is the case? Like human minds, jinn minds, Allah? 

 

 

 

Already answered above, and I'm glad you admit that directed evolution does not mimic natural evolution.

 

Yes, because we aren't putting our proteins into a muddy pond and waiting centuries. Is this all you can think of?

 

 

The fact that you just said this proves to me you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Ok. Teach me.

 

The structures are indeed many, however the sequence space between these structures are very much different and distanced in sequence, and the limit to the number of protein families is also related to this.

 

That is nice. Now make the connection for me. Proteins are too complicated to be created by evolution? Is that your opinion or are you speaking on behalf of all Muslims?

 

 

Not to insult you but do you know what you're talking about?

 

See, what you wrote below is where you expose yourself. For someone who is so well-versed in the arguments of evolutionists, I would have expected you to at least understand the tenets of the theory.

 

If we have a protein strand that is 200 AA long, do you think the 200 AA length protein formed over time or that it  actually originated as 200 AA length long as it was?

 

It formed over time. We agree.

 

If you say that it formed over time then obviously asking the question of what would be the requirements for a 50AA length protein to go to a 70AA length is logically necessary, or from 50 to 80, or from 50 to 55, or whatever minimum you desire to choose then it is an obviously necessary question.

 

What would be the requirements? The same thing I have said. Mutation, natural selection and possibly codon bias. I might be missing a few factors as I am not a protein evolution expert. 

 

But I don't know why you think this is some knock-down argument. 

 

You are asking for a paper on something that is so fundamental that it's laughable no offense.

 

Not really. You said "Proteins need to grow because evolution." Your assertion is laughable which is why I wanted clarification. The main thing is "Will a larger protein help or hurt the protein and the organism it works for?" THIS IS NATURAL SELECTION. So yes, proteins can grow, but not arbitrarily. And you being unaware of this betrays your ignorance of evolutionist arguments.

 

 

 

You speak about being educated on subjects before speaking about them, but honestly from your responses you have lost credit with me for your understanding on the subject.

 

Ok.... Well, right back at you?

 

What saddens me is that you are talking about a scientific theory, and all you can offer is supposed common sense and your incredulity. It simply doesn't cut it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Jebriel, and I guess for everyone else too.

 

I think its good to work with various ideas within the theory of evolution. In science, there will always be questions that need answering, discoveries to be made, just by the nature of the vastness of reality.

 

Watching a "debate" like this, or discussion, it feels kind of like...a boxing match.  Where someone opposed to evolution can get a punch or two in (or at least rattle the cage a bit), but realistically there are about 10 boxers with independent fields of study all standing on the side of evolution waiting to jump in. It isnt a mere coincidence that evidences are matching across our fields.

 

Details can certainly be discussed and debated, and they probably always will be (especially so long as theyre controversial with respect to religious beliefs). But for all intensive purposes, this is a debate over some details of how things have occured, rather than if evolution is or is not true along with common decent. The conclusion is clear, the details leading that conclusion are ever unfolding.

 

I would say that this is simply my opinion, but its not really my opinion in the sense that I have decided on it.  It is simply the way it is.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

 

Yes everything does evolve and change over time, as some other posters have stated, but ultimately everything has a beginning. Birds, cats, dogs, human beings, something created all of them. They didn't just start out of nowhere.

 

"He brought forth creation through His Omnipotence, dispersed winds through His Compassion, and made firm the shaking earth with rocks."

 

"He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies."

 

Adam and Eve were not Apes and Gorillas and we did not evolve from them.  :)

 

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your response to me sounds like an angry person venting out his emotions and ignoring/twisting everything. 

 

You implied that you are unstudied protein science, then why are you even speaking on the subject? The largest and most important branch of evolutionary biology is protein science.

 

Do me a simple favor, just answer the question I'm about to give you, it will be a clear and very concise question.

 

Let us say that we have a protein that is 200AA in length, let us that say one of it's prior states before it evolved to it's present state was a protein that was 50AA long.

 

Let us say that the most advantageous and plausible minimum step is 50AA to 80AA (we are not speaking about the function that is produced by this jump,let us leave that aside) why would be the requirements?

 

My question is this 

 

Is it that the 30 amino acids are simply added without rearranging the 50AA?

 

Or is the entire 80AA string rearranged? 

 

 

I can guarantee you one thing, you will not answer this question or you will agree with me.

 

 

 

By the way argument of incredulity doesn't apply here since I'm using objective criteria, you seem to be taking your arguments from talkorigins.org. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...