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  
HassanShia

Evolution And Islam?

Recommended Posts

Salam aleykom

To Jebreil

I didn't say I prefer the other opinion, but this is the general understanding amongt muslims, and there are people mentioning hadiths and Ahlulbayt traditions as proof.

As I said, the angels had a previous version of humans they could compare too to say what they said..so, if it was as you said, the whole evolution thing till we arrive to a certain point when Allah (swt) decided that this will be a "unique" creation..this is not opposing the Quran.

The idea of going through alot of developement and evolution is not strange to me, or to many others I think. Like the example of earth and sky (Astaghfer Allah, not having the exact verse in hands)..in that example, the earth and sky were one and then they were torn apart..I can't imagine how they looked like if they were one unit and still being earth and sky, how could they melt together somehow?? yeah, science makes me understand that..

..but if it was the other way around..well, it's still not opposing Quran, but opposing our "science" and what we handle everyday of facts..so that's the part we are discussing (I think) and I'm interested to make it sound reasonable with what we know and understand today..

And, I will read the rest of comments, and get back inshaAllah

cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really up to you to decide whether its "cool" or not, especially if you're not a scientist with full understandings of these things.

Science isn't democratic and it shouldn't be democratic. That’s not how science works.

We don't sit around and vote for the answer we like best, we look at the evidence and find an answer that works the best, no matter how much we do or dont like it.

As a biologist i can confidently say the distinction you make between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is a false one. Microevolution leads to macroevolution, as you call and use these terms anyway.

Salam again

I have to reply in small pieces, sorry

well, I'm not voting here,I was summarizing the ideas that came up in this thread..well, the scientific one no need to discuss since we read it in school, but it's the other ideas and misconsumptions muslims have that need discussion and refining.

So, it seems people (and one made a ref to a scholar's web page I think) accept evolution in animals but not in human beings. So, when it comes to human beings people (muslims) can accept that we have mutations here and there, hence skin color, diseases and so on, but don't accept that humans evolved from apes..that's what I noticed/understood from this thread. So, yes for me it seems they accept, as long as we talk human beings, microevolution but not micro..which as u said, is a result of microev.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

Its that easy, it takes 2 seconds to google. Its not hard. The fossils are here, theyre not fake, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. There have been literally camps of large numbers of ancient hominids that have been found. We arent talking about 1 or 2 skeletons, were talking about hundreds. This guy cant even name the fossils let alone call them out as fakes.

jumoing to conclusion I see..I was talking about the one in norway, that was recently discovered and claimed to be the missing link, not talking about ALL fossils!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think it’s incredibly biased and rigid to argue we "will never have any proof...ever" when you can't possibly know that for a fact. You can't know if we'll discover proof tomorrow or not, you're essentially saying you've already made up your mind and you think there'll never be any proof or that you'll never believe in such proof.

....

Care to elaborate what exactly you think this missing link is and what it should look like or is it just some buzz word you picked up from the media and know next to nothing about?

Many people who bring this challenge just scream out Missing Link! like apes beating their chest (see how i slipped that joke in) Missing link! without even knowing what their talking about. A lot of them are quite insincere as well, most of these people i've talked to know next to nothing about genetics, anatomy, biochemistry, ect. They wouldn't even be able to identify the missing link they wanted if we did find it. Most of these people also haven't even taken steps to educate themselves on this matter, they wouldn't even be able to tell if it was a missing link or not. To me, this shows me that they don't genuinely care about finding the actual missing link or whether there is a missing link or not, it’s just a slogan they love to shout out while they go around doubting good science. I'm not saying this is you but most people who use this argument wouldn't know a missing link if it hit them in the face.

if I was biased? yes, towards that we, people argueing in this thread wouldn't be alive when this happen (the discovery I mean) not towards we will never find that link..I'm aware of all bioogy, genetics, and archeology needed before you authenticate a discovery..I have been waiting for it for long time, and would love to experience it soon before I die..

and then about the scientific facts with biochemistry, genetics and so on..again ,as I said to Jebreil, if everything fits together, waw nice, not opposing Quran still...if it's not, then we keep argueing, and thats what we are doing..I mean if muslims said yes to evolution and all, we wouldn't be arguing, so Im trying to collect info here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could i see some quranic proof for this assertion? Unless you're being non-literal, in that case why even hang on to Adam and Eve at all.

Even if you believe in Adam and eve, as i have shown above, this implies that the human race is only about 4000-6000 years old and only something like 80 generations when it quite clearly is neither of those things.

It's a wounded idea, there’s so many problems with it that the logical and intelligent person ought not to hold onto what clearly is an allegory and a story about creation, life, divine grace and a tale to explain the origin of man.

But, here the genes would be mixed then, with "older" and "younger/newer" mutations, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....olution_fossils

Its that easy, it takes 2 seconds to google. Its not hard. The fossils are here, theyre not fake, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands. There have been literally camps of large numbers of ancient hominids that have been found. We arent talking about 1 or 2 skeletons, were talking about hundreds. This guy cant even name the fossils let alone call them out as fakes.

You guys are pulling at every straw, looking for every single possible option, besides the simplest one that is right here before you. Theres no need to entertain wild ideas about a man springing in full form from a puddle of mud, ripping his rib out of his chest and having it transform into a women. No...theres no need to believe that a human male and female mated with angels and jin (neither of which anyone here has ever seen nor knows anything about, and even if they did exist they arent even physically existent things that can have sex with humans). arent jinns made of smoke or something?

Why are people tossing around these wild ideas about people having babies with clouds of smoke? Why not just say, hey...my DNA changes, i can see that, that means that I change too, and i can see that too when i see that parents have children who look different from them. Its that easy. And look! I even have hundreds of fossils of ancient humans that look almost like me but not quite, so reasonably they probably evolved.

Its that easy guys. go read about this stuff, go read about the fossils on wikipedia or something. Go read about mutations. talkorigins is a good website that could help, go check it out, google it. Use youtube if you have to. DonExodus2 has plenty of educational videos. Do something, because this is embarassing.

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, more on this. Sorry again if i was nasty at all before. It had been a long day lol. But um...Yea, the scientists arent the bad guys here, and i personally am not here to attack Islam. To me, this subject really has nothing to do with Islam. Im just here really to defend science. And im sure Pomba is on the same boat. We arent just making stuff up.

yeah, this is a major issue..are we trying to test hypothesis and presenting different opinions, or just attacking each other for the sake of attacking each other?

just present data and discuss it all like you cant proof if its right or wrong (simply because we are comparing teology and science, not science to science, most believers are interested in thier own faith rather logic, and they think thye have to believe 100% in every single letter and word they hear from a scholar)

I think Najib started this new "spirit" in this thread..thanx for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jumoing to conclusion I see..I was talking about the one in norway, that was recently discovered and claimed to be the missing link, not talking about ALL fossils!!

I dont care what you were or were not talking about, i was just providing transitional fossils. To tell u the truth i didnt even read your previous post because it doesnt matter to me. Ill post the link again too lol

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

its that easy, 2 seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and then about the scientific facts with biochemistry, genetics and so on..again ,as I said to Jebreil, if everything fits together, waw nice, not opposing Quran still...if it's not, then we keep argueing, and thats what we are doing..I mean if muslims said yes to evolution and all, we wouldn't be arguing, so Im trying to collect info here

Ive never met a muslim scientist who disagrees with me. Not any trained in biology or geology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Well ok, ill be honest, its not an easy explanation, i just simplified it 100 fold for this discussion. If you would like, feel free to read up. Then we can get more complex when we both know whats going on.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, why go with the easy explanation?? the thing is people read about things...but then the misconsumptions come in, with opinions from scholars that usually have nothing to do with, lets say, evolution/biology/genetics whatever..then the believers usually want things to sound more logic so that they could cope with it, specially in our time..so we get our discussion and long threads...usually, people have already made up thier minds, so let's try thier theories and see how far/close it could be to whatever we are comparing to..

Also, it depends on what youre challanging. The fossil succession supports evolution with its transitionals. That is to say that very old rocks contain older types of animals. More specifically in old rocks you will find nothing but fish, in younger rocks you will find land animals. and in between you find animals that are like fish, but also like land animals. This is what is found. Its established. On the bio end, its also established that DNA based organisms mutate. when they mutate, they physically change. This is established and known. There are the most basic pieces of evolutionary theory and they are established and known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to remind you, this is actually about evolution and Islam as the title suggests. So not only about evolution, so that is also why I talked about the Qur'an. I think it is permissible here on this forum, and then it is up to you to defend it on this forum..so just a reminder nothing else.

When we talk about science, we talk about science. Thats all there is to that. The discussion involving butterflies and fossils and mutations...thats all science, and thats where it stays when talking to people of science. It is an overall topic that includes Islam, but when you move into science, thats where you move, thats all there is, you dont manipulate it with politics nor religion. You establish it, then you determine politics and religion after the fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Aleykumassalam,

When a scholar changes his view, it would mean he has done some research on it before changing it, otherwise he wouldn't just change it. Moreover, you are still claiming that Shirazi changed his view, while you are not sure about it. I know tebyan, but I don't know if I can really say it's the most trustworthy site on the internet. They just take everything as truth and publish it, I really don't believe there's a good team of scholars behind it to update information and check it. And Wikipedia is not reliable at all as I said. I can't even use it for essays on schools..that should say something. About Mutahhari it would not be good to quote him, because we can't really ask him now can we? Maybe someone else wrote it on his name, but it could be false or he could've changed it later on like you presume Shirazi did..

But still, there are like 99% others who say evolution is against Islam and probably the other sects' scholars too. That would mean something and humans can make mistakes so scholars too, they do not have the 'Alimul-Ghayb' of Prophets and Imams (PBUT). Therefore, I would still follow the general view on evolution and the Quran so that would mean it's contradictive.

PLUS, what if it was true, don't you think there would be AT LEAST one hadith, even if it would be weak? Like Imam Ali (as) in his sermon would say: God created monkeys from clay, and formed them etc etc and then we evolved and then for a specified time he let us dry?? Or just one hadith of Imam Jafar(AS) at least..or even in Sunni books. But there is literally nothing on that subject said by anyone..So then if a scholar would say something like that, he would say it by his own knowledge, which I don't prefer much.

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

There is much of true science which we know nothing about. And, there are some ḥadīth which suggest evolution, like before Adam there were more Adams.

Anyhow, I think we've reached a fruitful end. I've actually provided the excerpt from Tafsīr Nemūne compiled by Makārem in my previous post, and so, he has said this at some point. You can also find the relevant Moṭahharī excerpts too, as well as Meshkīnī and Sobḥānī.

From al-islam.org, referring to Makārem's book:

From what we have mentioned above, we infer that although the verses of the Qur`an do not directly mention the issue of evolution or 'constancy of species', nevertheless, the apparent meanings of the verses is more in accordance with the concept of independent creation (of course, this is as far as the creation of man is concerned). Despite not being entirely explicit, the apparent meanings of the verses dealing with the creation of Adam (a.s.) mostly tend to revolve around the concept of independent creation; but with regards to the other living beings, the Noble Qur`an remains silent.

http://www.al-islam.org/180_questions_vol2/21.htm

al-islam.org is a very reputable source.

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

Regardless of whether he changed his stance or not, the fact that a reputable scholar at some point writes this means that it is not inconceivable for a scholar to believe the two to be reconcilable. If endorsing the possibility of evolution was sinful or took you out of the folds of islām or was shirk or kufr or glaringly false, then a scholar such as Makārem would never ever write that in a million years. The fact that he did shows that it is neither sinful, nor apostasy, nor shirk, nor kufr, nor glaringly false.

Also, the fact that other scholars have also held this belief of reconcilability means that it is not unIslāmic.

By Beheshtī and Bāhonar, two martyred scholars of Islām:

Anyhow, it is important to note that the emergence of man on the basis of evolution from other primates is not in conflict with the teachings of the revealed religions, especially with the belief of an Almighty Creator of the world. We have repeatedly mentioned in Islamic Teachings that Allah, as described by the Qur'an, is the Creator and Disposer of nature. Therefore the perfect system of nature is one of His signs and not an arrangement parallel to Him or negating Him. All the scientific discussions and efforts are aimed at only finding out this system of nature as it actually exists.

http://www.al-islam.org/philosophyofislam/11.htm

----------

Conclusion

It is not unIslāmic to claim that the Qur'ān and Evolution are reconcilable.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

Aleykumassalam,

I think again you have taken those words out of context to my opinion. When they say the Quran has remained silent about it, it does not mean they think the Islamic system IS in fact opposing evolution. Actually I do not think that Makarem Shirazi has changed his view, but you have taken his text out of context. So he explained that it could be scientifically explained, but NOT through evolution because he says its false. That is how I see it, otherwise they would explicitly mention Darwin´s theory and say that this theory COULD be true in regards to Islam. But they did not.

Wassalamo Aleykum

(bismillah)

(salam)

To Najib

If you read those links in their entirety - a bit of a long read - you will find reference to Darwin's name and work. Those scholars don't necessarily believe in it, but they find it reconcilable.

That's what I'm arguing. I'm not a scientist, and I can't prove to you that Evolution is true. But I can see that many scholars, regardless of whether they believe in it, do not exclude the possibility of reconciliation.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SORRY, but I HAD TO LAUGH,,cause guess what: THe impossible happened!!!! :D A BLACK male and a BLACK female got a WHITE child with BLOND hair..there goes the theory: Throw it OUT of the Window :D

http://www.thesun.co...white-baby.html

yes they have tested their DNA and said the baby is REALLY theirs..no stolen baby reported!! lol.. AND GUESS WHAT! :D She's not an Albino :D

Prof Sykes said BOTH parents would have needed "some form of white ancestry" for a pale version of their genes to be passed on.

But he added: "The hair is extremely unusual. Even many blonde children don't have blonde hair like this at birth."

ALLAHO AKBAR!

So explain THIS before you elaborate any further with your science :) Please,,

I'm a little late on this perhaps, but I tell you. I am Dutch but my far ancestors were of Bosnian blood. Both my parents have dark hair, but I have dark blonde hair. It has to do with recessive genes. If my parents have black hair genes and wite hair genes. In both of them the black hair gene may be dominant, but they still have this recessive dark blonde hair gene. so when i was born, i got their recessive genes.

just making things clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Bismillah

Please 'scientists' respond clear and short.

if humans evolved from apes then why do apes exist.

apes should have already been turned into humans

(this is not a very important question I am just asking to see what your foundation is about apes)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Bismillah

Please 'scientists' respond clear and short.

if humans evolved from apes then why do apes exist.

apes should have already been turned into humans

(this is not a very important question I am just asking to see what your foundation is about apes)

Please read the entire response thoroughly if you really want to understand. The "Final Section" of it i think may bring the most clarity.

This question cannot be answered briefly.

I will answer it as briefly as I can. But in all honesty, you're going to have to sit down and think about it, because in order to understand, you need to take time to think about it. First we need to discuss taxonomy.

150px-Biological_classification_L_Pengo_vflip.svg.png

Think about elephants. There are elephants that live africa and there are elephants that live in Asia. The two african and Asian Elephants, are not the same. Asian elephants are smaller, they have smaller ears. They are within the genus "Elephas"

African Elephants are bigger, and are within the genus "Loxodonta"

Ok, so we have 2 types of elephant, with 2 different names, but they are both within the elephant "family" known as "Elephantidae".

OK so what we have is a "Family" Elaphantidae which includes The "genus" Loxodonta and the genus Elephas.

ancestry.gif

Look at the picture, look at the names, and just try to understand it. Also, on the right you will see "eocene, oligocene, miocene, pliocene, pleistocene, and holocene", these are "epochs" of time. Eocene is like a long time ago, pleistocene was just 10,000 years ago. holocene is present time.

Google these terms breifly just so you understand what the picture is showing you.

Ok so, now the point im trying to make is, the Indian Elephant, and the African elephant (you can see them at the top of the picture) are both descendents of ancient elephants (they evolved from ancient elephants). All are elephants, the ancient elephants are elephants, and the asian elephant and the african elephant are elephants too. Everything in the past were elephants and everything in the present are elephants.

So the point is, an asian elephant, can evolve from ancient elephants. So this is how elephants can exist today while having evolved from elephants. You may ask "If the asian elephant evolved from elephants, then why are african elephants alive today?"

The answer is, because evolution works like a tree.

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

Ok, now i will try to explain using humans. If humans evolved from ancient apes, then why do various apes exist today? The answer is, the apes that exist today, are not the same as ancient apes.

"Apes should have already been turned into humans". Well...ancient apes turned into orangutans, humans, gorillas, chimpanzees etc, just like ancient elephants turned into african elephants, asian elephants, indian elephants etc. Ancient apes do not exist any more, just as ancient elephants do not exist any more.

Its the same thing. Apes (chimps, humans, gorillas, orangutan etc), branched out into various "species" of the same "Family" of ape. Just as elephants (asian elephant, african elephant etc) have branched out into various "species" of the same "Family" of elephant.

And that is the answer.

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

Final section

Its like when you have a family.

Years ago there were your grand parents (Family granddad and grandmom). after 2 generation, gave birth to many children (Genus Aunt, uncle, father, cousin, sister, brother ), but they were all still human (Family dad and mom).

Years ago there were ancient apes (family hominidae), after thousands of generations, they gave birth to thousands of different ape (genus' (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, humans etc), but they were all still apes (family hominidae).

Millions of years ago there were ancient elephants (family elephantidae), after thousands of generations they gave birth to thousands of different elephant genus' (asian, african, mastodons, mammoths etc), but they were all still elephants (family elephantidae).

So you see, other apes like chimpanzees and orangutans and gorillas, are sort of like our distant cousins. (very very distant, many millions of years worth of generations).

The apes that exist today, are the offspring of ancient apes (like a sister is an offspring of ancient dad and mom). Which is why chimps and orangutans and gorillas all exist today. They exist today just as our brother and sister and cousins do. But our grand parents no longer exist, well some do, but they pass away with time. Just as the ancient apes passed away with time, millions of years ago.

I hope that makes sense, sorry if it was lenthy, but if you read the whole thing, you should now understand.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

iDevonian

Yeah ok I get what you mean by "why apes exist".

The answer according to you in brief was: "because ancient apes over the generations branched apart." and some of those 'branches' are chimps, humans, orangutans.

What makes you think humans evolved from apes?

Lots of animals look alike; snakes and eels.

So.. let me see you make a chart tree with eels and snakes as the branches and watch you connect them with a distant ancestor.

Can you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its amazing how people compare us to apes still.

Look at the level of human sophistication. We keep using our self-awareness to become more and more sophisticated.

While chimps haven't made the progress we have made.

I'll accept and believe evolution the day we get a situation where chimps represent their own world in light of "Planet of the Apes" style.

If they become that sophisticated like we are, then yeah, I'll accept evolution, only till then :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

iDevonian

Yeah ok I get what you mean by "why apes exist".

The answer according to you in brief was: "because ancient apes over the generations branched apart." and some of those 'branches' are chimps, humans, orangutans.

What makes you think humans evolved from apes?

Lots of animals look alike; snakes and eels.

So.. let me see you make a chart tree with eels and snakes as the branches and watch you connect them with a distant ancestor.

Can you?

Yes, I can. But, what you must understand is, there are billions of animals, and if you include fossils, we are talking about literally trillions of "branches". So, any attempt i make, will never give the full picture. And nobody pays me enough to attempt to make the full picture. As a matter of fact, nobody in any field of science could make the full picture because there are so many animals, it would be like trying to count grains of sand. It would take forever to make the full tree.

Also, you should talk to KingPomba, he can draw and import pictures onto shiachat. I do not know how to import drawings, nor do i draw my own pictures for the internet. And so, my ability to explain things is limitted. If you were in the room with me, id just grab a pencil and paper and do it real quick. But over the internet its tricky because I must find pre made images on google :P.

Lets see what google pictures I can find

Oh also, snakes, do have feet. I know that sounds kind of silly but if you look at their skeletons, they do have little feet bones.

And sometimes what u get are these genes reactivating and animals growing body parts that they had in their evolutionary history. Like this snake that grew a leg. Or sometimes chickens will grow sharp reptilian teeth, or sometimes humans will grow 8 nipples. Things like that. And whales too for that matter.

The reason whales breathe from blowholes and not from gills like fish is because whales evolved from land mammals. Thats also why whales and dolphins are so much smarter than sharks and fish. Their brains are more "advanced". They have different evolutionary histories.

najash_phylo.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/6187320/Snake-with-foot-found-in-China.html

F2.large.jpg

here is one without pictures

a01fig01.gif

As for your first question. How do people know we evolved from primitive apes?

Well, first off, morphologically we are apes. We have two arms and legs, bilaterally semetric with a spinal cord and...foramen magnus and all that good stuff that im not going to bother trying to give in detail because its too much.

Aside from that though, how do we know we evolved from ancient apes?

Well, this answer cannot be briefly given. There are many many many many.....many ways that we know. But none of them are easy to see unless you sit down and really take a bit to do some research.

There are morphological ways we know, there are many indicators in our DNA as well. Of course there is the fossil record. And here are just 3 things I have named, but you should understand that each of these 3 things are entire fields of science, in which many thousands of research papers on various topics are published.

So if I just say "the fossil record", I may only be saying one thing, but in reality, im talking about many many things. The entire field of paleontology has countless countless....countless...bits of information that support our evolutionary lineage.

the field of genetics. Again, we could talk about...read the evolution topic in my signiture. I talk about a few things. ERVs, fossils, observed mutations.

Personally I study geology, and I have personally worked with the fossil record, so thats what I know the most about.

strata_gradual.gif

So how do we know that humans evolved from apes? I could talk for hours and hours about it (scientists dedicate their lives researching it, they could talk forever about it). It would be better if you asked a more specific question.

Its amazing how people compare us to apes still.

While chimps haven't made the progress we have made.

chimps have made more "progress" than most other animals on earth. Considering the trillions and trillions of animals that exist, chimps are actually pretty smart. Last I checked, they could actually out compete college graduate students at memorization games. So dont act like they arent special too.

And, I hope everyone notices how you essentially ignored my previous post. The word "Ape" references humans, chimps, orangutans, bonobos, gorillas etc etc. All of us together are all different species and genus' of Ape. Ape is a big umbrella term that defines all of us.

To say that we arent apes, is like saying that we arent mammals. But last I checked I have warm blood, I am a mammal. I have a spinal cord, I am a vertebrate, I have 2 feet, I am bipedal and bilaterally semetric. I am an ape by the very definition of what an ape is. But that doesnt mean I am some sort of primitive animal. We are great apes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape), we are the most intelligent of all apes, we are humans.

And thats a good thing. "Ape" is not a derogatory term. Monkey may be derogatory, but we are not monkeys (monkeys have tails and arent as smart) But we are apes by its definition.

Our brain, is basically 3 brains in 1. We have our reptilian parts, our mammal parts and our fish parts, all in one brain. We are the pinnacle of intelligence of the animal kingdom, that is Homo Sapiens.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you can care to explain why Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, Gibbons, cannot replicate what we've accomplished

1) Cars, trains, airplanes, rockets, boats, and other sophisticated vehicles for transportation

2) The buildings we have from back then till now

3) Sophisticated religious, cultural, and moral beliefs

4) Synthetic medicine

5) Ability to speak multiple languages

The list goes on and on. These apes haven't replicated anything of this sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody talked about who can memorize more or less. We're talking about overall progress humans have made. Chimps have came nowhere close.

Well, you go try to fight a chimp hand to hand and ill be the judge of who has made more progress in that field :P.

Maybe you can care to explain why Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, Gibbons, cannot replicate what we've accomplished

1) Cars, trains, airplanes, rockets, boats, and other sophisticated vehicles for transportation

2) The buildings we have from back then till now

3) Sophisticated religious, cultural, and moral beliefs

4) Synthetic medicine

5) Ability to speak multiple languages

The list goes on and on. These apes haven't replicated anything of this sort.

Because their intelligence is not overall as advanced as ours. Still doesnt make anything ive said untrue. They are still very very impressive animals, especially compared to the trillions of others that exist and have existed in the past, and they still could beat the snot out of any human I know with thier hands tied behind their back. They can use sign language, they hunt in groups and use team work much like really primitive people of the past. They use tools and weapons too. And knowing some of the people out here, im quite certain they would be able to defeat a number of people at certain games, such as those of memorization.

Just because humans are more intelligent than chimps doesnt mean mankind are Gods. Mankind is still very much a part of the animal kingdom. Where we fail, other animals succeed. Where they fail, we succeed.

Makind is not greatest thing ever. If you really consider what mankind is and how we exist, you would recognize that we have made quite a mess here on earth, and many of us pay dearly every day for the mess we've made. Just wait until modern countries begin running out of food due to over population...then we will see what species is more intelligent :P.

And look how easily we die. A single virus...just one single virus could kill millions of us, if not billions. We all become afraid when we hear about "swine flu" and things like that. So how superior are we? Other living things out here may not have the brain that we have, but they have other traits that could indeed bring us to our knees.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should be modest, and undertand our role and vulnerability here on earth. It could all be taken away in the blink of a geologic eye. As it has many times in the past. Humanity is nothing more than a blip in history. In the grand scheme of things.

A picture is worth a thousand words.

350px-Extinction_Intensity.svg.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

Bismillah

To iDevonian

You are trying to prove we are apes because of similarity.

You only present physical similarities. (memorizing shapes and colors are still physical, its uses eye observation and data processing through brain cells which reflex another part of the body to respond to a certain observance.)

Yes I agree that humans and apes are similar because of their physical appearances.

In respect to humility, yes, some animals have advantages over us. Fish can breathe in water without advanced technological support (their internal organs are the most perfect and advanced technological support, if you look at it in a certain prospective).

But what really makes us different from apes is not our physical appearance and characteristics. It is our intellect.

Intellect is different from intelligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are trying to prove we are apes because of similarity.

You only present physical similarities. (memorizing shapes and colors are still physical, its uses eye observation and data processing through brain cells which reflex another part of the body to respond to a certain observance.)

Yes I agree that humans and apes are similar because of their physical appearances.

In respect to humility, yes, some animals have advantages over us. Fish can breathe in water without advanced technological support (their internal organs are the most perfect and advanced technological support, if you look at it in a certain prospective).

But what really makes us different from apes is not our physical appearance and characteristics. It is our intellect.

Intellect is different from intelligence.

It'd do you well to read back before you start commenting forward.

The fact of the matter is we're very very exceedingly similar as far as evolutionary biology goes.

Depends who you ask our DNA is either around 95% or ~98-99% similar.

Not sure how much you know about biology but quick lesson: DNA is the "recipe book" of your body. It contains all the "recipes" to make every single protein in your body. Protein is absolutely almost everything in your body from your hair...to your eyes..to your skin pigments. More importantly the things the average person doesnt even think or know about. All the enzymes in your body which play a tremendous role are almost always made out of protein. Enzymes are of fundamental importance to life. A lot of your hormones are protein based too.

Think about this, in the begging theres only sperm and eggs. They both have DNA and a few bits of other things like proteins and sugars, not much of that though. They fuse and their DNA mixes. It's from this DNA, its from this recipe that the person you look at in the mirror came from. You started out as one single cell and according to this recipe you were built up to what you look like today. I've been lucky enough to see a lot of embryos at different stages of development and dissect a couple (dont be alarmed, not human, those are exceedingly hard to come by and they're not given to lowly students like me anyway). Its really quite amazing as time goes by to see what develops, what is there that wasn't there a couple weeks earlier.

All your organs, everything, started off from a few cells, all under the guidance of the recipes in your DNA.

So, if our DNA is very similar, of course we are very similar. Which means in evolutionary terms we're very closely related to apes. This was all explained by me and other people in great detail a couple pages back.

You're giving undue weight to intelligence in the biological sense. It is an important adaptation and a great one to have. In regards to the genetic components though its not a huge amount of difference. As i said the % of genetic difference between humans and apes are small. They have hands like our hands, they have organs that are pretty similar to our organs. They have a chambered heart that is fully seperated, not all animals do for example. They have haemoglobin line us instead of haemocyanin in other animals. They excrete urea instead of uric acid for example. To the common person you might think we're very different but once you really start to learn about these things you can see we're very similar biologically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It'd do you well to read back before you start commenting forward.

I have read back. It doesn't affect my stance in any way. My stance is that we are similar to apes physically but not intellectually.

The fact of the matter is we're very very exceedingly similar as far as evolutionary biology goes.

I don't deny that. But that's as far as evolutionary biology goes... but it doesn't go that far. Doesn't cover concepts of intellectualism and philosophy.

So, if our DNA is very similar, of course we are very similar. Which means in evolutionary terms we're very closely related to apes.

I didn't deny that either. We are closely related/similar to apes materialistically and/or physically. That doesn't affect my stance at all. I'm saying we're different because of our intellectualism and philosophy.

You're giving undue weight to intelligence in the biological sense. It is an important adaptation and a great one to have.

Intelligence is a very important blessing granted to both animals and humans.

You're saying in biological sense. So, science respects and accepts intelligence in its scope of study. So intelligence is something physical, too, isn't it?

Animals and humans both have intelligence. Intelligence is physical. We are similar physically.

To the common person you might think we're very different but once you really start to learn about these things you can see we're very similar biologically.

Again, I'm glad you didn't forget to say 'biologically' at the end. You just focus on our biological and physical similarities. Yes, we are similar biologically and physically.

But what separates us is intellectualism and reasonable philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the fundamental reason that makes the concept of evolution look weak.

Evolution doesn't look weak to most scientists whom have studied the topic thoroughly. They think it's very strong.

So perhaps it looks weak to you and some people, but it's a different matter to say it "looks weak" as an universal statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the fundamental reason that makes the concept of evolution look weak.

Another fallacy is that they claim that only species evolve, but that ultimately means that individuals evolve.

individuals mutate, evolution is defined as a process among communities.

Salam

Bismillah

To iDevonian

You are trying to prove we are apes because of similarity.

You only present physical similarities. (memorizing shapes and colors are still physical, its uses eye observation and data processing through brain cells which reflex another part of the body to respond to a certain observance.)

Yes I agree that humans and apes are similar because of their physical appearances.

In respect to humility, yes, some animals have advantages over us. Fish can breathe in water without advanced technological support (their internal organs are the most perfect and advanced technological support, if you look at it in a certain prospective).

But what really makes us different from apes is not our physical appearance and characteristics. It is our intellect.

Intellect is different from intelligence.

Im not "trying" to prove anything. By definition we are apes. Its like saying, bananas are yellow. Thats just what they are.

And yes, our intellect does distinguish us. And thats why we are called humans, and not chimpanzees.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im not "trying" to prove anything.

If you're not "trying" to prove anything then why mention DNA structure, bone alignment, and biological similarities to support your stance?

By definition we are apes.

Who said? "TheSceintists"?

Now you say: "Well, humans have all the characteristics of an ape so that's why we are classified as apes." No. We don't. Apes (man isn't an ape) do not have intellectual capabilities and intellectualism.

If you have a hypothesis, you need evidence to prove it. That's basic experimentation, if you call yourself a "Scientist".

Its like saying, bananas are yellow.

Bananas don't have all the characteristics of the color yellow.

Humans don't have all the characteristics of apes.

Bananas are not classified as colors.

Humans are not classified as apes.

Main point: If you're going to use an example, then please make it make sense. This is not an accurate example to prove your point in regards to humans and apes.

And if you're going to say: Humans are Apes, then you need to prove your point. Apes do not possess intellectual capabilities of philosophical reasoning and such.

Thats just what they are.

Prove it.

And yes, our intellect does distinguish us. And thats why we are called humans, and not chimpanzees.

Thats why we are called humans, not apes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're not "trying" to prove anything then why mention DNA structure, bone alignment, and biological similarities to support your stance

Because there are multiple concepts we are discussing.

Who said? "TheSceintists"?

Yes, the founders of the word "ape" in taxonomic terms defined it.

Now you say: "Well, humans have all the characteristics of an ape so that's why we are classified as apes." No. We don't. Apes (man isn't an ape) do not have intellectual capabilities and intellectualism.

If you have a hypothesis, you need evidence to prove it. That's basic experimentation, if you call yourself a "Scientist".

been there, done that. And yes, apes by the people who have taxonomically defined ape, are an umbrella group of animals that include humans.

Bananas don't have all the characteristics of the color yellow.

Humans don't have all the characteristics of apes.

Bananas are not classified as colors.

Humans are not classified as apes.

Youre thinking about it backwards. Bananas are yellow, they have X traits aside from being yellow as well. These traits allow us to define the banana as a banana.

These traits also allow it to be defined as a fruit, which is an umbrella term for what a banana is. Just as "Ape" is an umbrella term that defines humans and other apes like chimps.

go read up on taxonomy, go read up on what taxonomically defines and ape.

And if you cant figure it out and ud like me to spoon feed you a definition, i can. But id hope that you have your ape brain and ape abilities that will allow you to figure it out yourself.

here, ill go ahead and help you out.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2109087

Primate evolution at the DNA level and a classification of hominoids.

Goodman M, Tagle DA, Fitch DH, Bailey W, Czelusniak J, Koop BF, Benson P, Slightom JL.

Source

Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan 48201.

Abstract

The genetic distances among primate lineages estimated from orthologous noncoding nucleotide sequences of beta-type globin loci and their flanking and intergenic DNA agree closely with the distances (delta T50H values) estimated by cross hybridization of total genomic single-copy DNAs. These DNA distances and the maximum parsimony tree constructed for the nucleotide sequence orthologues depict a branching pattern of primate lineages that is essentially congruent with the picture from phylogenetic analyses of morphological characters. The molecular evidence, however, resolves ambiguities in the morphological picture and provides an objective view of the cladistic position of humans among the primates. The molecular data group humans with chimpanzees in subtribe Hominina, with gorillas in tribe Hominini, orangutans in subfamily Homininae, gibbons in family Hominidae, Old World monkeys in infraorder Catarrhini, New World monkeys in semisuborder Anthropoidea, tarsiers in suborder Haplorhini, and strepsirhines (lemuriforms and lorisiforms) in order Primates. A seeming incongruency between organismal and molecular levels of evolution, namely that morphological evolution appears to have speeded up in higher primates, especially in the lineage to humans, while molecular evolution has slowed down, may have the trivial explanation that relatively small genetic changes may sometimes result in marked phenotypic changes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17925874

Demographic histories of ERV-K in humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys.

Abstract

We detected 19 complete endogenous retroviruses of the K family in the genome of rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta; RhERV-K) and 12 full length elements in the genome of the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes; CERV-K). These sequences were compared with 55 human HERV-K and 20 CERV-K reported previously, producing a total data set of 106 full-length ERV-K genomes. Overall, 61% of the human elements compared to 21% of the chimpanzee and 47% of rhesus elements had estimated integration times less than 4.5 million years before present (MYBP), with an average integration times of 7.8 MYBP, 13.4 MYBP and 10.3 MYBP for HERV-K, CERV-K and RhERV-K, respectively. By excluding those ERV-K sequences generated by chromosomal duplication, we used 63 of the 106 elements to compare the population dynamics of ERV-K among species. This analysis indicated that both HERV-K and RhERV-K had similar demographic histories, including markedly smaller effective population sizes, compared to CERV-K. We propose that these differing ERV-K dynamics reflect underlying differences in the evolutionary ecology of the host species, such that host ecology and demography represent important determinants of ERV-K dynamics.

Oh this last one is great

http://en.wikipedia..../Human_taxonomy

check this one out and look into each distinguished branch of our classification

  • Biota [all life on Earth, including precellular life]
  • Clade - Cytota [all cellular life; LUCA, Prokarya, Bacteria]
  • Clade - Neomura [like Archaea, also included, oldest neomura, common ancestor with them]
  • Domain - Eukarya [like Bikonta, also included, oldest eukaryotes, common ancestor with them; cellular nucleus; first eukaryotic multicellular organisms; plants]
  • Clade - Unikonta [only one flagellum; like Amoebozoa, also included, common ancestor with them]
  • Clade - Opisthokonta [like Fungi, also included, oldest opisthokonts, common ancestor with them]
  • Clade - Holozoa
  • Clade - Filozoa
  • Kingdom - Animalia/Metazoa
  • Subkingdom - Eumetazoa [remotest origin of animal motility]
  • Clade - Bilateria [having bilateral symmetry]
  • Superphylum - Deuterostomia [anus gets formed first, and mouth gets formed opposedly and after]

  • Order - Primates [arboreal prehensile locomotion; terrestrial bipedal leaping in some cases; Strepsirrhini, Prosimians, also included, oldest living primates, common ancestor with them]
  • Suborder - Haplorrhini [anthropoidea; like Tarsiiformes, also included, oldest living haplorrhini, common ancestor with them]
  • Infraorder - Simiiformes [earliest documented tool ethology; like Platyrrhini, American Monkeys, also included, oldest living simiiformes; monkeys and apes included here]
  • Parvorder - Catarrhini [land extended locomotion; like Cercopithecoidea, Old World Monkeys, also included, oldest living ones]
  • Superfamily - Hominoidea [tail loss, arboreal locomotion reduced to forelimbs (Brachiation); apes, lesser apes, hominoids; like Hylobatidae, Gibbons, also included, oldest living ones]

Species - Proconsul africanus

  • Family - Hominidae [great apes, hominids; fist-walking; family with Ponginae, Orangutans, also included, oldest living ones, common ancestor with them]
  • Subfamily - Homininae [or hominines; knuckle-walking; includes gorillas but not orangutans]

Species - Pierolapithecus catalaunicus

  • Tribe - Hominini [or hominins; includes chimpanzees but not gorillas]

Species - Sahelanthropus tchadensis, possible common ancestor with chimpanzees[citation needed]Species - Orrorin tugenensis, may be an early species after split with chimpanzees[citation needed]

  • Subtribe - Hominina [or hominans; orthograde (upright) bipedalism; humans are the only surviving species]

Genus - Ardipithecus [Human lineage] Genus - Kenyanthropus Genus - Australopithecus [Human lineage; made tools found]

  • Genus - Homo [or humans; specific and specialized development of memory/learning/teaching/learning application (learning driven ethology)]

Species - Homo habilis [refined stone technology; earliest fire control] Species - Homo ergaster [extensive language, complex articulate language] Species - Homo erectus [fire control, cooking; aesthetic/artistic refinement of tools] Species - Homo heidelbergensis [possible earliest sanitary burial of deads, accompanied with symbolic/formal supplement]

  • Species - Homo sapiens [further development and specialization of learning application; active environment transformation, acclimatization and control; infrastructures and advanced technology]

Subspecies - Homo sapiens idaltu

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

iDevonian

And if you cant figure it out and ud like me to spoon feed you a definition, i can. But id hope that you have your ape brain and ape abilities that will allow you to figure it out yourself.

That's naughty of you, and you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

iDevonian

[b]

That's naughty of you, and you know it.

he deserves it, next time instead of saying "prove it", he will say "hey, how do you know that?". And instead of automatically assuming im wrong, he will actually hold the discussion and decide afterwards rather than predetermining what I know or dont know. I dont mind talking to people, but he should not be rude if he doesnt want a rude response.

Edited by iDevonian

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...