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

13 hours ago, hasanhh said:

@S.M.H.A.  Thank you very much.

ln your first explanation, l saw a program on epigenetics concerning the effects of famine on the later generations of males in a small population in Europe.

What you wrote in the second post about evolutionary constraints reminds me of the best laugh l ever had over a program on evolution: the thesis was this North American water creature evolved legs to escape a ferocious predator. That is 2 :hahaha:able points: the question, since when is 'Necessity' a driver of evolutionary change?; and second, if it evolved legs, then why not wings --and then fly or more quickly flap its way away?

 

Based on information posted since Page 16. I will say R.I.P to version of Darwanian  T.O.E .

*****

Next and the most important Stage.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235052378-the-delusions-of-atheists/?page=4&tab=comments#comment-3103397

 

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@S.M.H.A.

None of the research you have posted actually opposes the occurance of evolution by mutation and natural selection nor do they oppose gradualism as a viable model for evolution and common descent.

for example,

your one post notes foreign genes from microorganisms making their way into the human genome. And the link notes that this is a challenge to the idea that evolution occurs solely through mutation and natural selection of genes passed through ancestral lines.

However, gradualism is just one model regarding one means by which evolution occurs. And few believe that evolution occurs solely through gradual mutation and natural selection without any other occurrences affecting how genes are altered and passed down through time.

 Viruses for example might affect our genome, but this doesn't disprove the fact that we mutate and pass on our mutated genes as Darwin proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I could draw an analogy to darwinian evolution and the game of basketball,

 

Darwin basically made a discovery that points were scored in the game of basketball (life evolves), and he saw evidence for this, and proposed that points could be scored by shooting the ball through the hoop (common descent). He considered different means of shooting such as, the 3 point shot, and the 2 point shot (mutations and natural selection). And there were things he did not know, like the mechanics behind dunking the ball (all the things that he didnt know because he lived over 150 years ago).

As history passed, people came to learn the mechanics behind shooting the ball and dunking the ball, and built upon the darwinian theory of how to score points in basketball.

Some scientists discovered alternate ways of scoring points, such as, shooting the ball from half court in the last second of the game.

But understanding alternate situation specific means for scoring points (half court shots), doesnt mean that anyone has disproven darwins original proposition that scoring 2 and 3 pointers is how you score points in the game.

And further, even if 50 years from now, someone discovered that shooting full court shots was a viable means of winning a basketball game, it still wouldnt disprove the fundamental process of shooting 2 and 3 pointers as a means of winning, proposed by darwin.

 

So there is no R.I.P. for the darwinian theory of evolution at all. Its just a discussion of what additional means of scoring are to be added onto and incorporated into his theory.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

 

Darwin proposed.

FYI

Quote

A little over a decade after he published “On the Origin of Species,” in which he described his theory of natural selection shaped by “survival of the fittest,” Darwin published another troublesome treatise — “The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relationship to Sex.” This expanded on an idea he mentioned only briefly in “Origin.” Sometimes, he proposed, in organisms that reproduce by having sex, a different kind of selection occurs: Animals choose mates that are not the fittest candidates available, but the most attractive or alluring. Sometimes, in other words, aesthetics rule.

Darwin conceived this idea largely because he found natural selection could not account for the ornaments seen in many animals, especially males, all over the world — the bright buttocks and faces of many monkeys and apes; the white legs and backside of the Banteng bull, in Malaysia; the elaborate feathers and mating dances of countless birds including bee-eaters and bell-birds, nightjars, hummingbirds and herons, gaudy birds of paradise and lurid pheasants, and the peacock, that showboat, whose extravagant tail seems a survival hindrance but so pleases females that well-fanned cocks regularly win their favor. Only a consistent preference for such ornament — in many species, a “choice exerted by the female” — could select for such decoration. This sexual selection,as Darwin called it, this taste for beauty rather than brawn, constituted an evolutionary mechanism separate, independent, and sometimes contrary to natural selection.

To Darwin’s dismay, many biologists rejected this theory. For one thing, Darwin’s elevation of sexual selection threatened the idea of natural selection as the one true and almighty force shaping life — a creative force powerful and concentrated enough to displace that of God.

Full NYTimes article here.

Survival of the Prettiest

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/18/books/review/evolution-of-beauty-richard-prum-charles-darwin.html

*****

Quote

Fodor, who died last month, thought that the neo-Darwinists had confused the loyalty oath of modernity with blind adherence to the fallacy known as “natural selection.”

 

Quote

Fodor attacked neo-Darwinism on a purely conceptual and scientific basis—its own turf, in other words. He thought that it suffered from a “free rider” problem: too many of our phenotypic traits have no discernible survival value, and therefore could not plausibly be interpreted as products of adaptation. “Selection theory cannot distinguish the trait upon which fitness is contingent from the trait that has no effect on fitness (and is merely a free rider),” he wrote. “Advertising to the contrary notwithstanding, natural selection can’t be a general mechanism that connects phenotypic variation with variation in fitness. So natural selection can’t be the mechanism of evolution.”

 

Quote

Fodor was interested in how the distinction between an adaptation and a free rider might apply to our own behavior. It seems obvious to us that the heart is for circulating blood and not for making thump-thump noises. (Fodor did not believe this for was defensible, either, but that is for another day.) Pumping is therefore an “adaptation,” the noise is a “free rider.” Is there really a bright sociobiological line dividing, say, the desire to mate for life from the urge to stray? The problem isn’t that drawing a line is hard; it’s that it’s too easy: you simply call the behavior you like an adaptation, the one you don’t like a free rider. Free to concoct a just-so story, you may now encode your own personal biases into something called “human nature.”

Once you’ve made that error, the nonfiction best-seller list is yours for the asking. Everyone loves a mirror disguised as a windowpane: you tell whatever story your readership wants to hear, about whatever behavior it wants to see dignified. So the habits of successful people have been made, over the past thirty years, into derivatives of the savannah and the genetic eons, and “natural selection” has been stretched from a bad metaphor into an industry. Nobody was better at exposing this silliness than Fodor, whose occasional review-essays in the L.R.B. were masterpieces of a plainspoken and withering sarcasm. To Steven Pinker’s suggestion that we read fiction because “it supplies us with a mental catalogue of the fatal conundrums we might face someday,” for instance, Fodor replied, “What if it turns out that, having just used the ring that I got by kidnapping a dwarf to pay off the giants who built me my new castle, I should discover that it is the very ring that I need in order to continue to be immortal and rule the world?”

 

Quote

When I reread “What Darwin Got Wrong,” there were two sentences that I paused over longest. “What trait did evolution select for when it selected creatures that protect their young? Was it an altruistic interest or a selfish interest in their genes?” 

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/postscript/jerry-fodors-enduring-critique-of-neo-darwinism

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abrahamic religions agree that Adam and Eve were the first creations on Earth, but Science today has proven with highest precision that Evolution is truth and a fact, so it is very easy for scientific atheists to disprove the theory, that Adam was the first man on Earth. So we have the very important question which is did religious scholars misinterpret the religious scriptures? Evolution disproves the belief of the Jewish, Christian and Muslim Scholars and their followers that man suddenly appears. 

(Muhammad ibn Ali al-Baqir pbuh said: Since the creation of the earth, God Almighty has created seven peoples who are not descendants of Adam. He created them from the soil of the earth and caused them to inhabit it, one after the other, each with his own people. Then, God Almighty created the father of this mankind, and He created his offspring from him." Al Sadooq 1982, 359. Arabic source, translated. Also Al-Ayashi 1991, vol. 2, 238.)

(The Prince of the Believers, Ali pbuh said: "God Almighty wanted to create a creation with His own hands after 7,000 years of Jinn and Nisnas existing on earth. He wanted to create Adam... I want to create a creature with My hands, and I want to make from his offspring prophets, messengers, righteous servants, and guided Imams, and make them vicegerents among My creation on My earth, who command them against disobeying Me, warn them of My torment, guide them to My obedience, and guide them to the path toward Me. I shall make them Proofs of Mine upon the others, and I will exterminate the Nisnas on My earth and cleanse it of them." Al-Qumi 1983, vol 1, 36. Arabic source, translated.) 

We understand from the narrations of the household of The Prophet pbuhap about these beings called Nisnas, meaning human like in Arabic. Nowadays we know from Science about Neanderthals and Homo Erectus, and other human like beigns which have been confirmed by the fossil records, which preceded Homo Sapines. Imam Muhammad al-Baqir pbuh and Imam Ali pbuh knew and talked about it over 1000 years ago. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is a generic word/term used. Science is also a misunderstood word/term." Science has proven" is a misstatement and very deceptive slogan used by many to give credence to an idea. Science is a basically our struggle to understand us and whats around us. We do not create new thing, we only discover. As the Data is Agnostic- it could be given any spin.
 

Mental and Visual imagery of the definition and the message is very important and Marketing/branding people know this very well. 

Here

250px-The_March_of_Progress.jpg

Quote

The illustration was commissioned by Time-Life Books for the Early Man volume (1965) of the popular Life Nature Library.[1] This book, authored by anthropologist F. Clark Howell (1925–2007) and the Time-Life editors, included a foldout section of text and images (pp. 41–45), entitled "The Road to Homo Sapiens." It prominently features the sequence of figures, drawn by natural history painter and muralist Rudolph Zallinger (1919–1995).

Criticism of the Above Imagery to promote and idea and embed in human pysche....

Quote

Criticism[edit]

The march of progress is the canonical representation of evolution – the one picture immediately grasped and viscerally understood by all.... The straitjacket of linear advance goes beyond iconography to the definition of evolution: the word itself becomes a synonym for progress.... [But] life is a copiously branching bush, continually pruned by the grim reaper of extinction, not a ladder of predictable progress.[3]

Gould reproduces several advertisements and political cartoons incorporating the March of Progress to convey one message or another. He even presents a "personally embarrassing" example: one of the four foreign editions of his books (over the design of which he had no control) which used the "march of human progress" as a jacket illustration. Gould never actually mentions Zallinger or the Time-Life Early Man volume in his critique, giving only vague clues as to the origin of the concept.
  • Intelligent design advocate Jonathan Wells wrote in Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? (2002), "Although it is widely used to show that we are just animals, and that our very existence is a mere accident, the ultimate icon goes far beyond the evidence."[4] The book likens a selection of evolution theory textbook topics to the cover illustration thus qualified.

*****

 

Evolution  as defined in textbook for schools and univercities.

Quote

The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

The explanation
Biological evolution is not simply a matter of change over time. Lots of things change over time: trees lose their leaves, mountain ranges rise and erode, but they aren't examples of biological evolution because they don't involve descent through genetic inheritance.

The central idea of biological evolution is that all life on Earth shares a common ancestor, just as you and your cousins share a common grandmother.

Through the process of descent with modification, the common ancestor of life on Earth gave rise to the fantastic diversity that we see documented in the fossil record and around us today. Evolution means that we're all distant cousins: humans and oak trees, hummingbirds and whales.

1) Micro Evolution

Quote

 

House sparrows have adapted to the climate of North America, mosquitoes have evolved in response to global warming, and insects have evolved resistance to our pesticides. These are all examples of microevolution — evolution on a small scale.

2) Macro Evolution

Quote

Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.

It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.

Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.

The basic evolutionary mechanisms — mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection — can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time.

 

Macroevolution equation
dot_clear.gif
Download this, and the graphic at the top of the page, from the Image library.

 

A process like mutation might seem too small-scale to influence a pattern as amazing as the beetle radiation, or as large as the difference between dogs and pine trees, but it's not. Life on Earth has been accumulating mutations and passing them through the filter of natural selection for 3.8 billion years — more than enough time for evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

3) Natural Selection

Quote

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.

*****

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Iskandar91 said:

 Science today has proven with highest precision that Evolution is truth and a fact, so it is very easy for scientific atheists to disprove the theory,

As per my last post above. Its not a simple issue. To lump everything this idea has into a Generic term 'Evolution". . What is termed as "NaturaL" is not the Natural we understand form the word "Nature"/Natural. There are three basic issues here

1)Micro evolution

2)Macro evolution

3) Natural selection

1) is noting new, we all know of changes that happen  and this has be around even before it was incorporated into this idea. Usually laypeople relate the term 'Evolution" to this type.

Issue is with 2 and 3.

If you were to read from page 16-till present post. the two arms of this idea 2 & 3 are only theoretical. So, this notion that "Evolution"  has been Proven by "Science" is false and misleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not trying to derail this thread, l do want to digress for a moment.

Reading the above arguments and points and such, l do have this thought:

Maybe, in the next few years Darwin will be thought of as Freud is now: What he wrote and started led to more thorough investigations and more complete models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

macro evolution is proven to have occurred (regardless of if any of us suggest otherwise here on SC). The understanding of how it occurred, will certainly develop in years to come. But without a doubt, mutations and natural selection, have played a significant role.

The fact that phylogenetic trees in paleontology match biological trees in clearly predictable ways, really only makes sense "in light of evolution" as the phrase goes. Beyond that, it demonstrates truth in macro evolution.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an article l "tripped" over this morning while looking up something. l enjoyed reading this back then: http://discovermagazine.com/2008/feb/did-life-evolve-in-ice 

What l am trying to look up is: there was an experiment on life origins in the 50s where a drop containing guanine was formed in ice. Anyone remember the name?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@S.M.H.A., if you think it is only theoretical then you don't know the science. Denying Evolution is like denying that the Earth revolves around the sun. 

Wahhabi clerics Ibn Uthaimeen for example said the sun revolves around the earth and day and night is caused by the sun revolving around the earth. Ibn Baz said the same, whoever disbelieves in evolution is no better than Wahhabi clerics.

Evolution is a certain matter that happened in the past and still happens, it is enough that all universities and research centres consider evolution to be the only explanation for diversity of life forms on earth.

The problem is that there are people who still reject Theory of Evolution for religious reasons only and the Atheists who accept it but claim that it has no purpose and that nature is the blind watchmaker, while Evolution has a purpose and it is law abiding, it follows the laws of Allah swt.

In regards to Natural Selection, this is from the book I am reading, the author, a Sayeed explains:

"EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION

THE COMBINATION OF DIFFERENTIATION, NATURAL SELECTION AND HEREDITY ABSOLUTELY RESULTS IN EVOLUTION

This can be simplified with the following examples:

Example: Europeans have dark-skinned (black) origins, yet today we find that they have white skin with gradations of skin tone. For example, southern Europeans are less white than Northern Europeans. This is because nature selected the favored races, but the reason for nature’s selection of white skin may simply be due to Vitamin D, which requires sunlight to penetrate the skin for it to form, whereas dark skin prevents or reduces the penetration of sunlight. In Europe, where there is less sunlight, people with dark skin are more exposed to the high risks of Vitamin D deficiency, which threatens life and reproduction. In this manner, the fittest one survives. Since differentiation in skin color (or pigment) inevitably exists, light skin is selected since it enables the one who has it to survive in an environment with little sunlight. So an inevitable sifting process continues one generation after another until the skin reaches a color suitable for the environment. The same applies to the size of the nose, height, and other traits.

Example: The changing of the moth color from white to black as a result of the industrial revolution. Moths benefitted from the white color, as the bark of the white trees would conceal them and they wouldn’t be seen by birds. When the industrial revolution happened in Europe, the tree bark became black in some industrial areas as a result of pollution by coal, and white moths were exposed to birds, while the moths that carry the mutation giving them a dark color were concealed and they survived. So the moth color changed within a short period because their life cycle is short and they don’t require millions of years for biological evolution to occur. Rather, a relatively short period is enough for hundreds and thousands of generations to pass and for biological evolution to occur.

Example: Ancestors of giraffes have different neck lengths, some of them being relatively longer than others. If we assumed they existed in an environment with food at a height more suitable for the ones with long necks than for those with short necks, nature would select giraffes better suited for life in that environment. So the short-necked giraffes would either starve to death or be incapable of reproduction and mating due to food shortage, or incapable of feeding their young. Thus the number of short-necked giraffes would decrease in this environment and might become extinct, whereas the long-necked giraffes would survive and reproduce well. So the giraffes with the long-neck trait would grow in number and they would pass down these genetic traits to their offspring, and the genetic maps of giraffes would become purified from the short-neck trait, one generation after another.

These matters are almost self-evident and to now prove their validity through genetics is exactly like proving Earth’s orbit of the Sun through images. Nevertheless, a great number of people deny it simply because they think it contradicts the religious texts."

The Sayeed also adds:

"Summary

The evidence verifying the theory of evolution is plentiful, and sound arguments against the claim of single-burst creation are many. This includes the previously mentioned recurrent laryngeal nerve argument, as well as other similar comparative anatomy and historical geology arguments, which all prove conclusively that animals and plants are increasingly developed in successive time periods.

The earliest organisms to exist were bacteria, and after a long period of time, single-celled eukaryotes followed. Multicellular organisms came later on. In this manner, life gradually evolved.

Now if the process of creation occurred in a single burst, and God intended to create the human being, the environment, and the organisms that surround the human being, and if humans have only existed in recent times relative to the geological history of the earth, then why would God create the first groups of organisms in an order such that each newer group is similar to but more developed and evolved than the older group?

Did God create them with this gradual development over time in order to mislead human beings, so that they would believe in evolution when seeing creation arranged like this in the geological layers? Of course not. God wants man to know the truth as it is, and to believe in God and the creation as He made it.

The only convincing, logical, and acceptable answer to what we see in historical geology is that life had a simple beginning, and then gradually evolved and developed."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2017 at 2:57 PM, Iskandar91 said:

@S.M.H.A., if you think it is only theoretical then you don't know the science. Denying Evolution is like denying that the Earth revolves around the sun. 

Wahhabi clerics Ibn Uthaimeen for example said the sun revolves around the earth and day and night is caused by the sun revolving around the earth. Ibn Baz said the same, whoever disbelieves in evolution is no better than Wahhabi clerics.

Evolution is a certain matter that happened in the past and still happens, it is enough that all universities and research centres consider evolution to be the only explanation for diversity of life forms on earth.

The problem is that there are people who still reject Theory of Evolution for religious reasons only and the Atheists who accept it but claim that it has no purpose and that nature is the blind watchmaker,

If you are going to bring in the Wahabi/Religion card.

Not the scope of this thread, but I can probably make a better case ...Free Love Theory...visit the graveyard and resurrect Darwin, 

Few Dots, you may want to connect..

Darwin Book in 1859

1919 Age: Infinite

In the early 20th century, astronomers thought that the Universe was infinitely old and unchanging.  

1930’s World divided in Steady State or Expanding Universe theories

World War 1918

World War II 1945

Korean War 1950

Vietnam War 1945

*****

Richard Dawkins 1941

Christopher Eric Hitchens 1949

Sam Harris 1967

Big Bang Theory- Expanding Universe 1960’s

PEACE Movement

Hippie Movement 1960’s

March of Progress :The illustration was commissioned by Time-Life Books for the Early Man volume (1965)

1969 Woodstock Festival

Richard Dawkins Book: The Selfish gene 1976

“Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion” Who said this?

When do you think was the opportune time to revive Darwin and start the chimp love affair?

These vocal and very articulate backers of Darwinism - which era they belong to  and what is their world view?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I stated above, Beyond the Scope of this thread. 

I Will disengage here. Not looking for further discussion. If there is anything of importance, I will address it in the topic listed below.

You and others are welcome to the next and more important stage of the discussion.

END.

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, S.M.H.A. said:

As I stated above, Beyond the Scope of this thread. Then what kind of telescope or microscope do we need?

and here ...

I Will disengage here. Not looking for further discussion. If there is anything of importance, I will address it in the topic listed below.

Chicken?

You and others are welcome to the next and more important stage of the discussion.

END.

Now l feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to know your thoughts on what the famous Palaeontologist S J Gould said about what he, as someone who was an expert in analysing the fossil record, concluded about the fact for the vast majority of species, there seem to come in quite suddenly in the Fossil record, and that is followed by a very large period of status. He proposed the mechanism of punctuated Equilibrium as the main driving force behind evolution. Now, that is still evolution by natural selection and random mutation, however, it is over a much more narrower period of time. I can understand why Dawkins was quite riled about someone proposing this, as well as gradualist proponents.

Note: I am aware gradualism is not something Gould refuted, as he believed there was evidence it was theoretically possible and had occurred in many cases, just, it was punctuated equilibrium that was the overwhelmingly dominant force. One would understand why Dawkins would be upset about this. Evidence pointing to the vast majority species rapidly coming into and out of existence followed by long periods of stasis pretty much undermines most of what he has written and argued.

I don't personally have anything against the idea of common descent , but i strongly believe random mutation and natural selection are just not plausible explanations. For an Atheist, they have got to be the only possible mechanism, because the alternative is bringing forth an intelligent entity. That is why they are the only mechanism given any real thought. While i don't deny it is a mechanism that has its place, no doubt, and natural selection a stronger role as a whole and no-one with any brain cells would refute a common sense theory like natural selection which is nothing revolutionary, i am not convinced it is the driving force behind common descent, if it occured.

Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms, and i know the reply is 'everything is a transitional form' but that defeats the point. I think whatever sort of 'evolution' occurred, it was rapid, and not random mutation followed by natural selection over millions-of years or tens of millions and more depending on the specific species we are talking about. 

When someone says 'Evolution is a fact' perhaps they mean there is good evidence for common descent of species. I am quite sure they don't mean gradualistic evolution as a means to explain the vast majority of diversity of life is a fact.  Once more, given the diversity of life, the way species seem to be connected in their various forms of categorisations , and the actual hard evidence we have from genetics and other means , i think a strong case can be made for common descent. I have no problem believing in a guided form of common descent. 

Edited by Intellectual Resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, i don't think Muslims, if they are made to understand Evolution would have any problems with it. The only issue is people claiming that the way the vast majority of evolution occurred was through random mutation, chance (even though Dawkins doesn't like to say it is) and the common sense basic fact of natural selection. I don't think from an objective stance that is sufficient. I also don't believe there is evidence that this was the driving force behind evolution. Furthermore , i believe theologically speaking God was the guide, the originator, and the real creator , if we were to assume common descent. 

When Muslims hear 'Evolution' many think that it means a process of absolutely random mutations , and natural selection, and that God has no hand whatsoever in creating, but that chance is the real creator, and lucky happenings are weeded out by the blind guide of natural selection. We see Atheist proponents of it claiming it their own and using it in debates, their their own version and interpretation and that causes an opposite and equal reaction to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

I'd love to know your thoughts on what the famous Palaeontologist S J Gould said about what he, as someone who was an expert in analysing the fossil record, concluded about the fact for the vast majority of species, there seem to come in quite suddenly in the Fossil record, and that is followed by a very large period of status. He proposed the mechanism of punctuated Equilibrium as the main driving force behind evolution. Now, that is still evolution by natural selection and random mutation, however, it is over a much more narrower period of time. I can understand why Dawkins was quite riled about someone proposing this, as well as gradualist proponents.

Note: I am aware gradualism is not something Gould refuted, as he believed there was evidence it was theoretically possible and had occurred in many cases, just, it was punctuated equilibrium that was the overwhelmingly dominant force. One would understand why Dawkins would be upset about this. Evidence pointing to the vast majority species rapidly coming into and out of existence followed by long periods of stasis pretty much undermines most of what he has written and argued.

I don't personally have anything against the idea of common descent , but i strongly believe random mutation and natural selection are just not plausible explanations. For an Atheist, they have got to be the only possible mechanism, because the alternative is bringing forth an intelligent entity. That is why they are the only mechanism given any real thought. While i don't deny it is a mechanism that has its place, no doubt, and natural selection a stronger role as a whole and no-one with any brain cells would refute a common sense theory like natural selection which is nothing revolutionary, i am not convinced it is the driving force behind common descent, if it occured.

Darwin predicted innumerable transitional forms, and i know the reply is 'everything is a transitional form' but that defeats the point. I think whatever sort of 'evolution' occurred, it was rapid, and not random mutation followed by natural selection over millions-of years or tens of millions and more depending on the specific species we are talking about. 

When someone says 'Evolution is a fact' perhaps they mean there is good evidence for common descent of species. I am quite sure they don't mean gradualistic evolution as a means to explain the vast majority of diversity of life is a fact.  Once more, given the diversity of life, the way species seem to be connected in their various forms of categorisations , and the actual hard evidence we have from genetics and other means , i think a strong case can be made for common descent. I have no problem believing in a guided form of common descent. 

Well, the question really becomes a game of numbers when talking about PE versus gradualism. We have to ask ourselves, at what rate can gradualism or gradualistic evolution occur, before it extends beyond gradualism.

The fossil record, by its nature, automatically depicts punctuated equilibrium. We couldnt see gradualism if rock units are separated by 10s or hundreds of thousands of years, or even millions of years, if gradualism is something that is defined to occur on the scale of hundreds of years or up to a thousand.

So, Gould proposed PE, but i dont think Gould has demonstrated that what is viewed in the fossil succession, is something that couldnt be accounted for by gradualism. I think he is just proposing a controversial idea, that can be rightfully proposed because we cannot see evolution on a very fine level, in the fossil succession. From the stance of a paleontologist, we cannot distinguish between what truly happened (PE or gradualism). So there is nothing unjustified about Goulds proposal, from the stance of a paleontologist. But it is, from a paleontological view, subjective, as to whether or not PE is true.

So, really, what has to be done is, someone would have to look at morphological changes in fossils over a vast period of time, and would have to look at the fastest rate at which gradualism could occur, and then would have to figure out if the fastest rate of gradualism could account for the morphological changes seen in the succession.

To answer the question, as far as I am aware, rates of mutation observed in gradualism today and in modern times, can account for morphological changes seen across the fossil succession, regardless of if they appear to occur suddenly or not, due to the nature of geology. If you find research otherwise, you are welcome to post it here.

 

One other thing, on a side note.  Random mutation was mentioned. There is something called "random walks" in paleontology, in which a succession of fossils might change back and forth and back and forth and back and forth, morphologically. Indicating an unclear path of evolution that is driven, in a seemingly blind way, by something that doesnt have a clear end goal or objective, like the planets environment. The planets environment can change back and forth, warm and cold, more or less oxygen, smaller or larger predators etc., and so fossils that appear to reflect that, can also change back and forth through the succession, as if they arent necessarily going toward an end goal, bur at rather changing to reflect or respond an environmental pressure.

And so evolution itself is sometimes considered random for this reason, that it is...blind, and is more responsive than it is proactive.

Though otherwise, I think that, being blind does not necessarily equate to being random. And just because something seems unpredictable to us, doesnt mean that it is without sense or reason. But just some thoughts...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One other thought i just want to add to the whole PE gradualism thing.

 

I think the topic is, not irrelevant, but I think that...

Lets say, just for the sake of discussion, some research was found in which large morphological jumps in the fossil succession could not be explained through gradualistic evolution. This is hypothetical.

10 years pass, and a biological mechanism is found that could account for that jump.

Then we would be back at square one, almost with a feeling of defeat.

Alternatively, we could skip that whole situation all together and could just recognize that, fast or slow, there is a biological, natural, and logically understandable/reasonable way in which common descent occurs. And if God is behind it, it doesnt really matter if it were fast or slow. And we wouldnt get our hopes up, thinking that people like Gould see something profound that indicates intelligent intervention into what we would otherwise consider natural everyday events.

We can bypass the dissapointment, if that makes sense.

So, as far as im aware, the biological mechanisms are already there, but even if hypothetically they werent, i wouldnt get my hopes up for something supernatural. Just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Intellectual Resistance said:

To be honest, i don't think Muslims, if they are made to understand Evolution would have any problems with it. The only issue is people claiming that the way the vast majority of evolution occurred was through random mutation, chance (even though Dawkins doesn't like to say it is) and the common sense basic fact of natural selection. I don't think from an objective stance that is sufficient. I also don't believe there is evidence that this was the driving force behind evolution. Furthermore , i believe theologically speaking God was the guide, the originator, and the real creator , if we were to assume common descent. 

When Muslims hear 'Evolution' many think that it means a process of absolutely random mutations , and natural selection, and that God has no hand whatsoever in creating, but that chance is the real creator, and lucky happenings are weeded out by the blind guide of natural selection. We see Atheist proponents of it claiming it their own and using it in debates, their their own version and interpretation and that causes an opposite and equal reaction to it.

 

Yea I agree. I think that, There has been an understandable backlash from young earth christians and creationists, or instantaneous creationists, which has unfortunately given atheists groups the chance to claim scientific finds as atheistic concepts and atheistic science. And in that, I think people forget the power and capabilities of God, and the possibility that God could use something like descent with modification, to build life in a flexible, adaptive and superior way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question:

l was watching a program on cats. ln the program it said a genetic mutation produced the Siamese cat. l know this is also true for the Manx.

So my question is: How many mutations does it take to produce a new species? (Am l asking this in the corredt way?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Quick question:

l was watching a program on cats. ln the program it said a genetic mutation produced the Siamese cat. l know this is also true for the Manx.

So my question is: How many mutations does it take to produce a new species? (Am l asking this in the corredt way?)

Siamese cats are not an independent specie. They can still have common offspring with other type of cats. This is the defination of a specie. Human and Chimps share 99% DNA, a difference large enough to make it impossible to have babies with them. However we have common ancestors. that lived 2.000.000 years ago.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Quick question:

l was watching a program on cats. ln the program it said a genetic mutation produced the Siamese cat. l know this is also true for the Manx.

So my question is: How many mutations does it take to produce a new species? (Am l asking this in the corredt way?)

I couldnt answer that question, maybe a geneticist could.  I would think the answer could vary based on the type of mutation. As many mutations wouldnt affect an organism in a way that would produce a new species. That and because there are different types of mutations that are going to affect different areas of the genome and will affect a different number of basepairs and proteins, its probably a question with varying answers.

Though there are examples of speciation that have occurred, in which the number of mutations behind that divergence has been recorded. Ill see if i can dig up some examples when i get some more free time.

Share this post


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

I couldnt answer that question, maybe a geneticist could.  I would think the answer could vary based on the type of mutation. As many mutations wouldnt affect an organism in a way that would produce a new species. That and because there are different types of mutations that are going to affect different areas of the genome and will affect a different number of basepairs and proteins, its probably a question with varying answers.

Though there are examples of speciation that have occurred, in which the number of mutations behind that divergence has been recorded. Ill see if i can dig up some examples when i get some more free time.

l was thinking last night, will it take a mutation far back enough in time -like the Cambrian explosion- to create a new species?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

l was thinking last night, will it take a mutation far back enough in time -like the Cambrian explosion- to create a new species?

well you have ah, things like ring species or ring speciation observed today. And this is seen in relatively recent animals. And you get things like morphological changes of the italian wall lizard too, in relatively recent times. There is laboratory derived speciation of insects as well.

So speciation, as far as im aware is something that can naturally happen within 10,000 years or less. Or perhaps less than a million.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

l looked back to page 17(inclusive) and other than mutagenic effects of chemicals and viruses, l didn't find a post similar to this:

https://www.laboratoryequipment.com/news/2018/01/nearly-all-australias-sea-turtles-are-hatching-female 

Would this be an evolutionary "stop/slowed" because now with fewer male turtles the genetic diversity will now be smaller and the ability to adapt more limited?

Note: sea turtles were around during the dinosaurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@iCambrian

Thank you for the replies, apologies for the late reply, hopefully i'll get to some of the interesting points you have raised at some point in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Islam we believe that there were more than one Adam, by that It means Allah created more humans than you can count, we aren't the first humans in the Earth. 

Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى knows that very well!

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...