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

3 hours ago, iCambrian said:

As always, if you have a legitimate argument against the theory, feel free to post it.

Well for testing the legitimacy of ToE, I am in search of LUCA. Can you guide me if there are any fossils of LUCA.

Let me share a joke here:

"Firstly, no LIVING species ever evolves into another LIVING species. Thus the LIVING monkeys (or apes) did not, ever, and will not, ever, evolve to be humans. Each LIVING species, be it monkey, ape, or human (of cat, dog, fish, amoeba, etc), is a product of its own evolutionary history, each equally long, each equally advanced, each reaching all the way back to the common ancestor of all life on earth.

So, LIVING monkeys did NOT evolve to be humans. Instead, the human lineage and the monkey lineage share common ancestors." (Adam Wu, Evolutionary neurosurgeon)

:hahaha: 

 

 


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Our human brains "with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written.

But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. "At first," he continues "these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression."

If the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life."

(Stephen Hawking)

I call this "dream of mad person".  Become immortal somehow.

You require "intelligence" for having the evolution of your choice & you deny the role of intelligence in your own evolution or creation.

Share this post


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

Well for testing the legitimacy of ToE, I am in search of LUCA. Can you guide me if there are any fossils of LUCA.

Let me share a joke here:

"Firstly, no LIVING species ever evolves into another LIVING species. Thus the LIVING monkeys (or apes) did not, ever, and will not, ever, evolve to be humans. Each LIVING species, be it monkey, ape, or human (of cat, dog, fish, amoeba, etc), is a product of its own evolutionary history, each equally long, each equally advanced, each reaching all the way back to the common ancestor of all life on earth.

So, LIVING monkeys did NOT evolve to be humans. Instead, the human lineage and the monkey lineage share common ancestors." (Adam Wu, Evolutionary neurosurgeon)

:hahaha: 

 

 


 

Living organisms and their evolution is observed all around the world.  Again, you arent presenting a scientific argument, you are just sort of...suggesting things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Here is a case in which you have morphological chages in the skull.  Stronger biting force, longer skull, wider jaw, shorter legs, and the cecal valve which was not present, in the species initially released to the island which drove their changes.

These changes occur in small steps.  We should not expect the lizard to have wings or anything, but these small steps are what is considered, evolution.

Share this post


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

"Our human brains "with which we process this information have evolved only on the Darwinian time scale, of hundreds of thousands of years. This is beginning to cause problems. In the 18th century, there was said to be a man who had read every book written. But nowadays, if you read one book a day, it would take you about 15,000 years to read through the books in a national Library. By which time, many more books would have been written.

But we are now entering a new phase, of what Hawking calls "self designed evolution," in which we will be able to change and improve our DNA. "At first," he continues "these changes will be confined to the repair of genetic defects, like cystic fibrosis, and muscular dystrophy. These are controlled by single genes, and so are fairly easy to identify, and correct. Other qualities, such as intelligence, are probably controlled by a large number of genes. It will be much more difficult to find them, and work out the relations between them. Nevertheless, I am sure that during the next century, people will discover how to modify both intelligence, and instincts like aggression."

If the human race manages to redesign itself, to reduce or eliminate the risk of self-destruction, we will probably reach out to the stars and colonize other planets. But this will be done, Hawking believes, with intelligent machines based on mechanical and electronic components, rather than macromolecules, which could eventually replace DNA based life, just as DNA may have replaced an earlier form of life."

(Stephen Hawking)

I call this "dream of mad person".  Become immortal somehow.

You require "intelligence" for having the evolution of your choice & you deny the role of intelligence in your own evolution or creation.

This post is irrelevant and has nothing to do with biological evolution. Its just discussion of Steven Hawkings futuristic sci fi imaginative thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I should clarify,

In a fundamental sense, the theory of evolution consists of mutations that occur within organisms, and change in a species over generations by that genetic alteration and environmental stresses.

So, when you ask about LUCA in particular, its as if you are dodging the 99.99% of the theory to talk about .01% that predates the well understood fossil succession by billions of years.

Im not sure whether to call it dishonest, or maybe you just arent familiar with the theory and are limited to criticizing one consideration of it.

Its like taking a single hadith in bukhari, and trying to use it to state that the entire religion of Islam is false.  Either it is dishonesty, or maybe just a lack of knowledge of Islam at large.

Share this post


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

Also, I should clarify,

In a fundamental sense, the theory of evolution consists of mutations that occur within organisms, and change in a species over generations by that genetic alteration and environmental stresses.

So, when you ask about LUCA in particular, its as if you are dodging the 99.99% of the theory to talk about .01% that predates the well understood fossil succession by billions of years.

Im not sure whether to call it dishonest, or maybe you just arent familiar with the theory and are limited to criticizing one consideration of it.

Its like taking a single hadith in bukhari, and trying to use it to state that the entire religion of Islam is false.  Either it is dishonesty, or maybe just a lack of knowledge of Islam at large.

I just want to address one scientific aspect of evolution I have a problem with cause I am trying to learn about it now with an open mind as much as possible which is hard coming from my religious background so cut m some slack when I don't do it perfectly

 

my problem is

Fossil record

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


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

So, when you ask about LUCA in particular, its as if you are dodging the 99.99% of the theory to talk about .01% that predates the well understood fossil succession by billions of years.

Brother, that 0.01% is supposed to be the foundation of ToE.

I know the evolution which is not blind, neither it is purposeless. A process which moves forward and when it moves backwards, i call it devolution.

Scientists have difference of opinion when they explain the evolution at macro & micro levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know how to accept a theory which starts from this assertion " all forms of life on earth, evolved from a common ancestor". 

It is just an assumption, based on the similarities or we have any evidence? 

"The scientific community recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, of all living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have. From LUCA forward, it's relatively easy to see how life as we know it evolved.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence about how LUCA arose from a boiling caldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. Those chemicals reacted to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today."

I just wanted to know the solid evidence as to why scientific community recognizes LUCA existed 3.6 billion years ago. It is very necessary for accepting the ToE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Spiritual said:

Brother, that 0.01% is supposed to be the foundation of ToE.

I know the evolution which is not blind, neither it is purposeless. A process which moves forward and when it moves backwards, i call it devolution.

Scientists have difference of opinion when they explain the evolution at macro & micro levels.

this is just conjecture.  Again, you arent forming an argument, just speaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Spiritual said:

I dont know how to accept a theory which starts from this assertion " all forms of life on earth, evolved from a common ancestor". 

It is just an assumption, based on the similarities or we have any evidence? 

"The scientific community recognizes that 3.6 billion years ago there existed the last universal common ancestor, or LUCA, of all living things presently on Earth. It was likely a single-cell organism. It had a few hundred genes. It already had complete blueprints for DNA replication, protein synthesis, and RNA transcription. It had all the basic components - such as lipids - that modern organisms have. From LUCA forward, it's relatively easy to see how life as we know it evolved.

Before 3.6 billion years, however, there is no hard evidence about how LUCA arose from a boiling caldron of chemicals that formed on Earth after the creation of the planet about 4.6 billion years ago. Those chemicals reacted to form amino acids, which remain the building blocks of proteins in our own cells today."

I just wanted to know the solid evidence as to why scientific community recognizes LUCA existed 3.6 billion years ago. It is very necessary for accepting the ToE.

LUCA, and its existence as well as abiogenesis, are independent of the theory of evolution.  They are additional considerations to the theory, so they are somewhat relevant to the discussion, however they are ultimately irrelevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is true.

And Ill tell you why, lets say hypothetically, God created the first life on earth.  Lets say God created multiple groups of primordial organisms.  How? doesnt matter, this is purely hypothetical for the sake of discussion.  Whether or not that abiogenesis occurred, and whether or not LUCA existed, is a completely separate question as, do organisms evolve? LUCA or not, abiogenesis or not,  still you have the question of if LUCA or any non LUCA lifeforms, evolve.

For laymen, its as if someone took a hadith from Bukhari (LUCA) and tried to say that Islam (The theory of evolution) was false because a single hadith lacked certain forms of evidence.

Either youre being deceptive, or you arent knowledgeable of the theory of evolution and various concepts that it is derived of.

 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

Also, I see you have ignored my comment on the italian wall lizard.

No, not ignored yet. I am reading the subject with full concentration. Will get back to you on that. 

Meanwhile, it seems that you have ignored my question of macro & micro evolution. :grin:

Given below is an explanation by a scientist:

"Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these bizarre changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen."

 Dr. John Morris

Share this post


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

LUCA, and its existence, is a hypothesis, independent of the theory of evolution.  It is an additional consideration to the theory, so it is somewhat relevant, but it itself is independent and its existence or lack thereof is irrelevant to whether or not the theory of evolution is true.

I think with this, you means to say macroevolution does not and did not happen.

In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004Futuyma 1998Ridley 1993).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a question for this "copy paste".

If you recognize that mutations do occur. Which you appear to.  What barrier do you believe exists between an organism changing via genetic changes that allow for micro evolution, and genetic changes that allow for macro evolution?

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

Here is a question for this "copy paste".

If you recognize that mutations do occur. Which you appear to.  What barrier do you believe exists between an organism changing via genetic changes that allow for micro evolution, and genetic changes that allow for macro evolution?

We need to see benificial mutations, if they exist, in what percentage?

I think the barrier are scientific evidences. That's why I am more intrested in finding clue for common ancestry.

We are lacking evidences and depending on assumption.

Edited by Spiritual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just now, Spiritual said:

We need to see benificial mutations, if they exist, in what percentage?

I think the barrier are scientific evidences. That's why I am more intrested in finding clue for common ancestry.

Beneficial mutations, by any scientists standards, exist. Even if hypothetically we said that only 1% were beneficial, it would be enough to claim that such mutations are promoted beyond a first generation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But even still, if we were to even ignore the percentage of positive vs negative vs neutral mutations,

If you recognize that mutations occur, what is the barrier stopping mutations from micro changes, into macro changes?

Share this post


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

 

Beneficial mutations, by any scientists standards, exist. Even if hypothetically we said that only 1% were beneficial, it would be enough to claim that such mutations are promoted beyond a first generation.

Ok, lets think that way, but again, we are not observing evolution at macro levels. Is this not true?

1 minute ago, iCambrian said:

But even still, if we were to even ignore the percentage of positive vs negative vs neutral mutations,

If you recognize that mutations occur, what is the barrier stopping mutations from micro changes, into macro changes?

What do we meant by macro level, this is important to remember. So we are not observing new types of organisms from previously existing, but different ancestral types.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Spiritual said:

Ok, lets think that way, but again, we are not observing evolution at macro levels. Is this not true?

What do we meant by macro level, this is important to remember. So we are not observing new types of organisms from previously existing, but different ancestral types.

macro evolution, is simply micro evolution, over time.  For example, we see micro evolution, we see speciation and small genetic changes occurring around us. For example, we see ring speciation.

ensatina.png?w=562&h=564

Like you said, these are small changes, small genetic changes in a single species.  However, what we find is that, these small changes, ultimately change the organism to the extent that the final product is too different from the initial, and they no longer interbreed.   Meaning that their lineages have branched into two separate directions.

Macro evolution, is nothing more than the continuation of those minor changes.  In the case of ring speciation, this organism went from a species 100% identical to itself (it was one) to say 99.99% identical to itself.  Now, they no longer interbreed, do it again, now they are 99.98% the same.

The continual slow and gradual change, inevitably leads to enough genetic variation, that they are no longer of the same genus, thereby being macro evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, evolution is real. I think the only way to make it agree with the story of Adam in the quran is if God is referring to the soul of Adam when he describes creating the first human. When Adam sinned God simply transferred his soul to a material body on earth.

Share this post


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

macro evolution, is simply micro evolution, over time.  For example, we see micro evolution, we see speciation and small genetic changes occurring around us. For example, we see ring speciation.

ensatina.png?w=562&h=564

Like you said, these are small changes, small genetic changes in a single species.  However, what we find is that, these small changes, ultimately change the organism to the extent that the final product is too different from the initial, and they no longer interbreed.   Meaning that their lineages have branched into two separate directions.

Macro evolution, is nothing more than the continuation of those minor changes.  In the case of ring speciation, this organism went from a species 100% identical to itself (it was one) to say 99.99% identical to itself.  Now, they no longer interbreed, do it again, now they are 99.98% the same.

The continual slow and gradual change, inevitably leads to enough genetic variation, that they are no longer of the same genus, thereby being macro evolution.

You ignore my arguments about the Cambrian explosion and what not above unless you answered them in previous posts. I would still like to see what you have to say.

Share this post


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

my problem is

Fossil record

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

So thats for number 1.

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

whales-graph.jpg

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

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

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

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

 

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

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

I still have issues on embryology

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


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

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

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

I still have issues on embryology

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

"

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

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

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

"

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

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

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe I should make a post on the fossil succession.

 

 

25-11-cladogram-al1.jpg

This might help^

 

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

So, this cladogram is depicting morphological traits.

Now imagine if the Lancelet had the DNA, AAAAAA

The Lamprey AAAAAB

the Tuna  AAAACB

the Salamander, AAAYCB

the Turtle AADYCB

The Leopard, ABDYCB.

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

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

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

Leopard - mammal

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

Turtle - reptile

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

Salamander - amphibian

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

Tuna - Jawed fish gnathostomata

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

Lamprey - Chordate agnatha, its a fish

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

Lancelet - Invertebrate

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

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

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

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

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

But thats a rant for another day I guess.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


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

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

But thats a rant for another day I guess.

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

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

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

 

 

Edited by Al Hadi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...