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  
.InshAllah.

An Interesting Anti-darwinism Blog

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

sted A minute ago

there is some truth to Darwinism.

did humans evolve from monkey? untrue

but have we evolved into very different humans than what Allah first created ? well thats true.

the skulls of neandertahals prove this. humans were taller and bigger and had bigger skulls but smaller brains. Ive read somewhere that the prophet Adam was 70 feet tall !! prophet Abrahams foot print in Mecca is huge too.

so yes we have evolved from a very diffrent kind of human to the one we are today...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sted A minute ago

there is some truth to Darwinism.

did humans evolve from monkey? untrue

but have we evolved into very different humans than what Allah first created ? well thats true.

the skulls of neandertahals prove this. humans were taller and bigger and had bigger skulls but smaller brains. Ive read somewhere that the prophet Adam was 70 feet tall !! prophet Abrahams foot print in Mecca is huge too.

so yes we have evolved from a very diffrent kind of human to the one we are today...

I don't believe we evolved from neanderthals, because the Quran states: Allah created man in the most Perfect manner: We created man in the finest mold. (Surat at-Tin, 4) ....Allah doesn't have rough drafts, He makes everything Perfect the first time. Edited by LebanesePrincess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we evolved from neanderthals, because the Quran states: Allah created man in the most Perfect manner: We created man in the finest mold. (Surat at-Tin, 4) ....Allah doesn't have rough drafts, He makes everything Perfect the first time.

Humans...well, Europeans, have neanderthal genetics. We are...well some of us are part neanderthal.

Darwinists believe in some creatures that never existed.... and they like to draw new creatures which exist in their own dreams and minds...

Yes, shame on those Darwinists for believing in dinosaurs!

barbourelephantevo.JPG

Just about all physical scientists recognize common descent. That is to say mankind evolved from primitive apes. The question is, how exactly did this happen? Was it darwinian evolution? Or was it Darwinian combined with other concepts? A person can be against "darwinism", and not be against man evolving from primitive ape.

So, everyone should distinguish between these ideas. We already know that we have evolved from primitive apes. The question is, how.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can make obvious understanding that 'man' evolved. The easiest way of stating this is not just through the similarities in genes and DNA and that the entire cosmic evolution of the universe 'evolved', and has done so for at least 13.7 Billion years. We have already even made fact how galaxies form and planets etc etc etc. This is well, pretty much common sense in our day and age.

The real concern, is that 'man' (meaning woman as well obviously) supposedly is the only lifeform that has this imaginary soul.(?) And therefore no priest or imam, or any 'religious' follower will ever accept that 'man' and animal are related. As by doing so they are really denouncing their own fairytale religion! Of which would not be a bad thing at all.

When it comes to such things as 'anti-Darwinism', this is just another label (as per the norm) really meaning anti-realism.

So I suppose the best option is not to inform religos about human's from ape, because even with absolute evidence in front of them thereby accepting this obvious evolution of man they would in turn be losing some of their own imaginery beliefs.

But what's so bad with that anyway? Just has science has progressed so has religious followers changed (totally) their ways of believing in many bibical old misunderstood truths. Women aren't inferior to men any longer! Gay people are generally accepted worldwide (even religiously)! The world is round! Witches are not being burned at the stake! Great floods and land movements, lightning and solar eclipses etc etc are ALL known scientifically confirmed as NOT an act from god any longer! They have all been fully scientifically proven (and obviously in turn, religiously accepted) as normal, natural, Earthly realities. So much so, that they are taught (with science only) to all children.

Did humans come from (now extinct) apes? Well they didn't just blink here, otherwise they would have had a heart attack and died on the spot!

In the beginning, man made god in his own image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans...well, Europeans, have neanderthal genetics. We are...well some of us are part neanderthal.

Yes, shame on those Darwinists for believing in dinosaurs!

barbourelephantevo.JPG

Fake and Gay, I laughed a lot thanks...

Just about all physical scientists recognize common descent. That is to say mankind evolved from primitive apes. The question is, how exactly did this happen? Was it darwinian evolution? Or was it Darwinian combined with other concepts? A person can be against "darwinism", and not be against man evolving from primitive ape.

So, everyone should distinguish between these ideas. We already know that we have evolved from primitive apes. The question is, how.

No we have not... I have enough of this lies of so called 'scientists'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake and Gay, I laughed a lot thanks...

No we have not... I have enough of this lies of so called 'scientists'

fake and gay? haha. We have the fossils, and with that, I wouldnt waste my time with you.

We can make obvious understanding that 'man' evolved. The easiest way of stating this is not just through the similarities in genes and DNA and that the entire cosmic evolution of the universe 'evolved', and has done so for at least 13.7 Billion years. We have already even made fact how galaxies form and planets etc etc etc. This is well, pretty much common sense in our day and age.

The real concern, is that 'man' (meaning woman as well obviously) supposedly is the only lifeform that has this imaginary soul.(?) And therefore no priest or imam, or any 'religious' follower will ever accept that 'man' and animal are related. As by doing so they are really denouncing their own fairytale religion! Of which would not be a bad thing at all.

When it comes to such things as 'anti-Darwinism', this is just another label (as per the norm) really meaning anti-realism.

So I suppose the best option is not to inform religos about human's from ape, because even with absolute evidence in front of them thereby accepting this obvious evolution of man they would in turn be losing some of their own imaginery beliefs.

But what's so bad with that anyway? Just has science has progressed so has religious followers changed (totally) their ways of believing in many bibical old misunderstood truths. Women aren't inferior to men any longer! Gay people are generally accepted worldwide (even religiously)! The world is round! Witches are not being burned at the stake! Great floods and land movements, lightning and solar eclipses etc etc are ALL known scientifically confirmed as NOT an act from god any longer! They have all been fully scientifically proven (and obviously in turn, religiously accepted) as normal, natural, Earthly realities. So much so, that they are taught (with science only) to all children.

Did humans come from (now extinct) apes? Well they didn't just blink here, otherwise they would have had a heart attack and died on the spot!

In the beginning, man made god in his own image.

And though I, in some cases would agree with some of the statement here. When I hear "darwinism", I just assume the people are referring to darwinian evolution, not evolution as a whole or common descent. Even religious intelligent design advocates like Behe, still accept that we evolved from more primitive apes, but still, Behe rejects "Darwinism".

And, In my personal opinion, I wouldnt reject the possibility of further development with the theory. Yes, natural selection clearly occurs. Mutations and all that stuff...yea. But I wouldnt want to claim that, that is all there is to it. Because, realistically, and this goes with every theory, there are concepts that we are still working to uncover. You can learn a song and play the song. And everyone says, yes thats the song. But, it takes time to fine tune the song, and to get that perfect sound that everyone will appreciate.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

fake and gay? haha. We have the fossils, and with that, I wouldnt waste my time with you.

You already wasted your time by changing your comment :lol:

Muslims we are ruined he has fossils! heh...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You already wasted your time by changing your comment :lol:

Muslims we are ruined he has fossils! heh...

touche :P.

Who says the fossils have anything against Islam? Aside from you that is.

You and that atheist who posted above seem to be under the impression that this is some sort of end all be all for Islam, should these fossils exist. But, I think most of us understand that, even with an understanding of evolution, Islam is here to stay. And many verses in the Quran and many muslims and even a number of highly credentialed muslims, recognize and support the theory. So, I think you and that atheist guy up there share something in common that I would disagree with.

It wouldnt even surprise me if the OP, InshaAllah even supported some things with relation to common descent, and even the person who made that blog that he posted about. Which could leave you as the odd man out. And nobody is here to ruin anything. Even I support many things in Islam. So dont judge just because I support my own field of science and research.

As a matter of fact, I have a handful of verses...let me see if I can dig them up. I used to have probably about 10-15 verses from the Quran that was given to me by a local muslim on this topic. They were good too. Ill look for them.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe we evolved from neanderthals, because the Quran states: Allah created man in the most Perfect manner: We created man in the finest mold. (Surat at-Tin, 4) ....Allah doesn't have rough drafts, He makes everything Perfect the first time.

LP, it is the disposition of all fair maidens to be sweet, passive, delicate and sublime ;)

... then why oh why are you so thorny ? :P

Alas, all roses have them :shifty:

...But I disagree. Humans have evolved over thousands of years due to the environment, what we eat, climate etc It's only logical.

The fossils of humans over the thousands of years tell a different story.

Once again- we didn't evolve from monkeys but from a very different kind of human that we are now.

...we are still evolving! On average humans are getting shorter too. Yes Allah doesn't have rough drafts but its the environment, food supply, climate that had changed us. if these was only one carbon copy for all humans , that being the Prophet Adam, then why do we have today the different group: caucasions, negro, mongoloids.

explain that ! :P Adam did not have all these differing features so why the differences if we all came from him?

Surely one of the gifts Allah has given humans is the ability to adapt to out ever changing environments. This gift has helped us evolve. otherwise we would have been wiped out like other species.

Inshallah we will continue to evolve.

personally I would love wings so i could fly high free like a bird. I would fly over LP and then do a fly by; drop a gift on her glorious head :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ohhh Noah I'll let that one slide...humor yourself while you can....I predict a painful procedure that will mark a milestone for you in the upcoming weeks.

You just made me clench !

yes I'm going to the butcher , opps I mean doctor, next week. :no:

It will defo be a milestone and I will have a Circumcision Party afterwards ... You'll be tinkled pink to know that you

gave me the idea and wifey loved it :)

So pain aside, I will have my cake and get to eat it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fake and Gay, I laughed a lot thanks...

No we have not... I have enough of this lies of so called 'scientists'

(salam) (bismillah)

This is what I think your thought process may have looked like:

"Hmm, this evolution thing seems a little complicated... I don't think I will be able to argue against it... Might as well quote Ray William Johnson and hope nobody notices that I refuse to put my dogmatic disbelief in the theory of evolution aside so I may examine it with an open mind "

Either that or:

"Man I want to express my opinion but I haven't the time to argue with such a petty man. Maybe I should just state my opinion to him without giving the reason behind it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) (bismillah)

This is what I think your thought process may have looked like:

"Hmm, this evolution thing seems a little complicated... I don't think I will be able to argue against it... Might as well quote Ray William Johnson and hope nobody notices that I refuse to put my dogmatic disbelief in the theory of evolution aside so I may examine it with an open mind "

Either that or:

"Man I want to express my opinion but I haven't the time to argue with such a petty man. Maybe I should just state my opinion to him without giving the reason behind it."

hmm... do you think that I don't have proof to back my statement with?

That was kind a funny ^_^

I have 'collection' of so called 'scientists' that tried to prove 'Theory of Evolution' by different types of fabrications in the end they all were EXPOSED

So you have 'ilm ul-guessing'?

Da*n it seems like you have Evolved! :o

Edited by Rasul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm... do you think that I don't have proof to back my statement with?

That was kind a funny ^_^

I have 'collection' of so called 'scientists' that tried to prove 'Theory of Evolution' by different types of fabrications in the end they all were EXPOSED

So you have 'ilm ul-guessing'?

Da*n it seems like you have Evolved! :o

(salam) (bismillah)

I have video evidence of evolution.

So long as you are going to claim you have proof and not post it, I will do the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have 'collection' of so called 'scientists' that tried to prove 'Theory of Evolution' by different types of fabrications in the end they all were EXPOSED

Hi, Biologist here.

I can definitely say you are totally wrong. I have studied these things at depth and i can assure you and also anyone reading that any such exposition you talk about is a complete fabrication. So, either you are genuinely mistaken and do not know what you talk about, in which case i would suggest you refrain from talking untill you know more or you are deliberately lying, which im fairly sure is both immoral and a sin. I won't ask which one but you and the people reading might like to consider exactly which option it is.

Its great to see you're enthusiastic, it really is. In in age where hardly anyone even reads books anymore or cares about anything beyond instant gratification and reality TV its great to see you care. It's excellent you want to participate in the discussion of the issue. However, to be able to actually make a contribution and to be taken seriously, its essentially you actually need to know what we're talking about. If i sat you down and asked you to teach me the theory of evolution in detail, could you do it? I dont want an answer but think of this within your own mind, same to all the people out there reading this, especially those critical of evolution, could you actually explain the theory in detail to me as a biologist. If you can't, I'm sure i dont need to point out what is wrong with criticising or opposing something you aren't fully knowledgable on, even on the basics. By basics i mean what natural selection really means, what founder effect is, what genetic drift is, what is evolutionary-developmental biology, how genome comparison and molecular clock works. If you don't understand these, you dont even understand or really know what you're even against, its such a silly position to be in, I'm sure you know this.

Would you walk up to an engineer on a bridge and tell him he's doing it all wrong when you don't understand the first thing about bridge engineering? Would you really? Think about this guys.

Likewise, i wouldnt take driving tips from someone who has no idea how to drive.

I'm sure we can all see what the issue is here.

It's great you have a view. Whats not great however, is if the entirety of your knowledge of evolution is based around the fact that you personally believe it goes against your religious convictions (the vast majority of religious people i've encountered are happy to reconcile evolution with their religious beliefs) and that "OMG OMG WE dun totally not evolved from monkeys!!" (Which isnt true anyway, we didn't evolve from apes, we shared a common ancestor with apes, key distinction).

So, as a rhetorical question to all those out there, do you disbelieve evolution (which is good evidence based science, let me assure you this is true) because the other members of your community disbelieve it? Are you simply an ignorant sheep being lead by the shepherd? You are almost as bad as the others you criticise, in your heart you know this is true, please dont let it be. Do you disbelieve it, based on an almost total lack of understanding, you just think we couldn't possibly evolved from monkeys and you stopped looking into it there? Is it such a good things to form your views on such thin air and ignorance? Surely, we all know that it is not. Think about whether you actually *understand* evolution or you are basing your disbelief off being a sheep or some ridiculous, illinformed caricature almost akin to the black face plays of old. Think deep, be truthful to yourself, its for the best. I wager most of you out there actually could not explain evolution to me. Again, i dont need to point out the pitfalls in such a position.

It's great you're firm to your beliefs. If you dont even fully understand evolution though, you are standing on a very thin platform of air. You won't be taken seriously, you'll reflect badly when you present your views amongst educated people outside your particular communities. You'll reflect badly on yourself and your religion. If you think something is wrong with evolution, thats OK but actually go out and learn about evolution, i mean seriously learn, so you can really make a contribution.

However, if you just simply lied above and you know this isnt true or you couldnt show me where you got it from, please dont do this to yourself. You're worth more than a lie. The truth is the right and pure way, don't debase yourself and make a mockery of yourself and your religious compatriots by acting in such a low manner.

You have my personal gaurantee that evolution is a widely accepted theory among biologists. Indeed, it is one of the most widely accepted and evidence based theories in all of science at large. Despite what the the either ill-informed or simple liars will tell you, there is no serious debate at all going on amongst scientists whether evolution is true. Everyone accepts it, the amount of evidence which i have both seen and understood is insurmountable. You can continue spouting slogans based on being ill-informed or hey, out and out simply lying (Allah just might be watching) if you want but this isnt the right path.

Edited by kingpomba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) (bismillah)

I have video evidence of evolution.

So long as you are going to claim you have proof and not post it, I will do the same.

So you believe in evolution theory? are you Shia? Auzubillah

anyway I hope it is not something which is drawn by your Atheist friends ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more factual proof to evolution that there is to the theory of gravity.

You do believe gravity is real I hope? If not, then I pity you.

Wow, you know, aside from myself, I have never heard anyone else say that. Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you believe in evolution theory? are you Shia? Auzubillah

anyway I hope it is not something which is drawn by your Atheist friends ^_^

(salam) (bismillah)

I am a practicing Shia and am still the most knowledgeable among my friends in the matter of religion. I don't see any reason for you to launch a personal attack against me other than on the basis of differing opinion. So allow me to explain my opinion and redeem myself in your eyes. If you really do not believe the theory of evolution I understand, I was the same way as well. The theory of evolution basically states that those with more desirable traits will be the ones that live on. If I can jump higher than you and this world turns into the world of Mario, I will be more likely to survive than you and thus the people with the same trait as me will also be more likely to survive on this planet. They will reproduce and eventually everyone in this Mario world will be really good at jumping high. There is no way that you can deny this aspect of the theory, it is simply common sense. Whether you would like to debate if man originated from an ape is different, however I don't think you should deny the theory of evolution on the basis of the stigma attached to it. Reading my previous comments I realize I was very blunt, sarcastic, and rude about the way I phrased my questions. I sincerely apologize for my rude tone and hope this conversation can move forward in a more intellectual manner from this point forth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

(salam)

This is not another "Is Evolution True?" thread. We have a sufficient number of these, one which, up until a few days ago, was talking about it in more depth than what ShiaChat is accustomed. Another, in the Thinker's Discourse, was more relevant to the relationship between the theory and Islam.

This is specifically a thread about the blog. It's an interesting blog, and by a scientist. Here's an entry: http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/this-paper-discusses-problems-with.html

If anything, it should humble those who believe that "anyone who is a scientist accepts evolution" or that "it is a fact that science has nothing to do with opinion/bias". Here, we have a scientist question a finding on scientific grounds, believing that opinion/bias is involved. It's an eye-opener in this regard.

(wasalam)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

(salam)

This is not another "Is Evolution True?" thread. We have a sufficient number of these, one which, up until a few days ago, was talking about it in more depth than what ShiaChat is accustomed. Another, in the Thinker's Discourse, was more relevant to the relationship between the theory and Islam.

This is specifically a thread about the blog. It's an interesting blog, and by a scientist. Here's an entry: http://darwins-god.b...blems-with.html

If anything, it should humble those who believe that "anyone who is a scientist accepts evolution" or that "it is a fact that science has nothing to do with opinion/bias". Here, we have a scientist question a finding on scientific grounds, believing that opinion/bias is involved. It's an eye-opener in this regard.

(wasalam)

The man isnt really questioning 99% of the findings though. Not in the statements that I have seen. For example, the link you posted here. He is referencing research done by people who support the theory, and you may see the words

"The authors of the paper are evolutionists, and so are sympathetic witnesses. They believe evolution is true, and yet even they must admit that the evolutionary tree has problems."

This should automatically tell everyone that, what we are dealing with, is fine tuning the theory. When people who support evolution, openly criticise their own work, and still after criticism recognize evolutionary theory as being an accurate theory.

Then he goes on to talk about...

"To be sure the authors still see much value to the traditional evolutionary tree model. But the paper highlights the fact that this traditional evolutionary tree model is, well, just that—a model."

As if a model is a bad thing. Plate tectonics and geodynamo theory use models too. And thats all they are, just models. However, we still recognize truth in both theories. Its just a matter of fine tuning the details. So it sounds like people are taking this as "oh this scientist has shown that the theory may be false", but thats not really the case. That would be like saying Islam isnt true because Muslims arent certain about how to interpret a certain hadith.

So, basically what I am saying is, even with criticism, which there is criticism in all fields...nobody really rejects evolution, or if someone does, they are very few in number. We all recognize that man descended from primitive apes, we all know about mutations and natural selection etc. Ok, so maybe people arent certain about the evolution of 3 billion year old prokaryotic ancestors (refered to in the blog). But that really has very little relation to evolution, as it pertains to...ya know, normal discussions about the theory.

I could criticise plate tectonics right now, and maybe that would be an eye opener to some, but most people would say...ok, plate tectonics is largely true. We know continents move, we know the rocks break at X angles with Y pressures etc etc. And nobody, even people who do criticise plate tectonics, reject it. And if they do, they are few in number, just as the guy in this blog is.

But I do agree

"This is not another "Is Evolution True?" thread. We have a sufficient number of these"

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam) (bismillah)

I am a practicing Shia and am still the most knowledgeable among my friends in the matter of religion. I don't see any reason for you to launch a personal attack against me other than on the basis of differing opinion. So allow me to explain my opinion and redeem myself in your eyes. If you really do not believe the theory of evolution I understand, I was the same way as well. The theory of evolution basically states that those with more desirable traits will be the ones that live on. If I can jump higher than you and this world turns into the world of Mario, I will be more likely to survive than you and thus the people with the same trait as me will also be more likely to survive on this planet. They will reproduce and eventually everyone in this Mario world will be really good at jumping high. There is no way that you can deny this aspect of the theory, it is simply common sense. Whether you would like to debate if man originated from an ape is different, however I don't think you should deny the theory of evolution on the basis of the stigma attached to it. Reading my previous comments I realize I was very blunt, sarcastic, and rude about the way I phrased my questions. I sincerely apologize for my rude tone and hope this conversation can move forward in a more intellectual manner from this point forth.

I apologize also Brother,

ok now I understand what you believe in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I just want to put this out there.

Lets look at this guy. Cornelius Hunter, the author of the blog.

Member of the Discovery Institude. aka the organization that often supports the idea of a 6000 year old planet. He's an evangelical teaching part time at a private christian university.

And, dont get me wrong, I am sure hes a bright guy, but If we want to talk about bias, id say its likely to be flowing from his end of the table just as it is from the 99% of us on the other side of the table, if not more. This guy sounds like the Huran Yahya of Christianity.

Where are the scientists who, with an honest opinion do not support the theory, who arent evangelical christians? Or who arent of the 200-300 members of the fundamentalist Discovery Institute who believes in the literal interpretation of the bible? These are the ones that I want to hear from. But I dont think they exist.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

iDevonian

So it sounds like people are taking this as "oh this scientist has shown that the theory may be false", but thats not really the case.

I think you are showing a little insecurity there. Nobody has said/implied "this scientist has shown that the theory may be false" - in fact, unfortunately, nobody is addressing the blog, except this humble angel, who merely points out that a scientist posts this on his blog:

"The scientific evidences which evolutionists often refer to as so strongly confirming evolution, in fact, do not. Yes there are evidences that are consistent with evolution, but there are also many that are not. In fact there are many evidences which argue against evolution. This is

evident in the many fundamental predictions made by evolution which have failed. There is a gaping mismatch between the high claims of evolutionists and the actual science."

I'm not a scientist. I view Dawkins' reasoning on par with yours and this blogger's (assuming these 3 are scientists with a grounding in the relevant scientific field) - if you 3 disagree amongst yourselves in scientific jargon, do so. He's not arguing based on the Bible, regardless of his religions convictions. He's arguing on what he claims are scientific premises. All 3 claim the same. So be jolly and argue it out between yourselves. A person untrained in the detailed theories involved, and I'm included, can't judge between you - unless all 3 of you give us the building blocks of your arguments, which would amount to a yearlong course on evoution, no doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

iDevonian

[b]

I think you are showing a little insecurity there. Nobody has said/implied "this scientist has shown that the theory may be false" - in fact, unfortunately, nobody is addressing the blog, except this humble angel, who merely points out that a scientist posts this on his blog:

Well, maybe i should recognize that rasul is not the majority here. Just making sure. And yes, well I think my last reply was relative to the blog.

I'm not a scientist. I view Dawkins' reasoning on par with yours and this blogger's (assuming these 3 are scientists with a grounding in the relevant scientific field) - if you 3 disagree amongst yourselves in scientific jargon, do so. He's not arguing based on the Bible, regardless of his religions convictions. He's arguing on what he claims are scientific premises. All 3 claim the same. So be jolly and argue it out between yourselves. A person untrained in the detailed theories involved, and I'm included, can't judge between you - unless all 3 of you give us the building blocks of your arguments, which would amount to a yearlong course on evoution, no doubt.

bah. Honestly, this isnt even a blog about evolution, its a blog about darwinian evolution. Its like a darwinism strawman blog. And with that, ill let it go.

all is well.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And, this is just my opinion. It seems like many of these ID advocates make the theory of evolution out to be some naturalistic concept. And, really, rather than providing evidence for divine support (which is what they often make conclusions in relation to), they instead attack the nitty gritty details of paleomicrobiology. Which is exactly what this guy is doing in his blog.

Its like, alright, the fossil record is too clean cut and obvious, lets look at the microbiology and physics of our 3 billion year old unicellular organisms They dig deep. And in exposing the nitty gritty details of 3 billion year old prokaryotic microbiology, they say, ok, this is too complex for me, it must be divinely manipulated. Which, i guess it could be, but tell me something we all dont already recognize a possibility of, give me some real research answering questions, not critiquing the most complex questions of current day science. .

Which, i think is just bolagna. Some ID advocates will acknowledge the undeniable support behind evolution and common descent, but often, many will not. Behe for example has, and Berlinski, Ive heard him give solid recognition of the clear sufficiency of the fossil record.

But guys like this blogger, hes making it out as if the scientists who write these papers are in denial or something. As if people do not already know that there are challanging questions when it comes to the complexity of billion year old cellular life.

"The authors of the paper are evolutionists, and so are sympathetic witnesses."

Like really? Sympathetic witnesses? Thats like saying geologists are sympathetic witnesses to the obscure details behind hotspot formation. Its just silly.

"well, just that—a model"

Well, what else would it be? Does he expect live recreation of ancient microbiotic life?

Ok :P, there is my critique of this blog. I think its...its designed to appeal to creationists, and worded in a way to make it sound as if there is some grand stupidity going around in the scientific community. You can acknowledge questions, and you can even support the idea of Intelligent design. I support ID all the time. But at least do it respectfully. And dont act like you havent come from a primitive ape out of the trees.

Edited by iDevonian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DNA repair, DNA replication and chromosome dynamics are just a few examples where we find incredible error correction mechanisms in the cell. These various molecular correction mechanisms are, of course, extremely improbable given evolution. We would have to believe that evolution constructed fundamental cellular processes which were literally disastrous. Stable populations would not have been possible. But then, somehow, evolution rapidly rectified the calamity with astonishing error correction mechanisms. This narrative is simply untenable from a scientific perspective.

Can someone expand on this? Why would this be the case? Why would stable populations of the first life form be impossible given no correction mechanism? I think he is saying because error correction is so common now, it must been that there would be so much errors before. But this isn't necessarily true. It could be there was less errors, but then still error correction would slowly but surely dominate population as it;s advantageous, but after population was with correction mechanism, it also became possible for errors to occur more often and be corrected. I think this is simply a matter of bad logic..unless someone can expand on his evidence and scientific proof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here it's in the blog:

Consider, for example, DNA repair. The delicate double helix macromolecule can be compromised for a number of reasons and for this problem the cell has an astonishing built-in repair capability. Worst of all is the so-called double-stranded break where both threads of the DNA double helix are broken. But even here the cell is able to mend the damage. As one researcher

put it

, “it’s almost as if cells have something akin to a computer program that becomes activated by DNA damage, and that program enables the cells to respond very quickly.”

One such cause of DNA damage is the accidental insertion of ribonucleotides (RNA) into the DNA molecule. These errant ribonucleotides can accumulate by the millions in a single cell and, as a new

paper

explains, are edited out in mice, for example, by a crucial enzyme.

The presence of ribonucleotides in DNA can also cause copying errors when the DNA is replicated, as part of the cell division process. And as with DNA damage, DNA replication also has an amazing error correction process. Amazingly, the copied DNA is checked for accuracy and corrected to dramatically reduce the error rate.

Not surprisingly DNA copying is more error prone when there is DNA damage. When such damage is detected the normal copying machines are paused and a special “

sloppier copier

” is ushered in to do the job. This backup copying machine is able to replicate a damaged section of DNA by not reading it so precisely. This means that there are more copying errors, but a copy with more errors is better than no copy at all.

In fact the cell division process involves various mechanisms that are, as the author of another new paper

put it

, “very complex.” For instance, in the more advanced eukaryotic cells the DNA is arranged in chromosomes. The chromosomes are replicated in the cell division process, and these chromosome pairs are attached in something like an “X” pattern. The two copies are later separated and destined for the respective daughter cells produced by the cell division.

This process too can incur many problems and again the cell has incredible error correction mechanisms to make things right. Here is how one

report

explained new findings on this process:

During cell division, the cell's DNA is consolidated into X-shaped chromosome pairs that align along the middle of the cell. Where the arms of the X cross, each chromosome has two kinetochores--protein complexes that facilitate microtubule attachment to the chromosome. As cell division progresses, these microtubules pull the right or left half of each chromosome towards the spindle poles to separate them to opposite ends of the cell.

Problems can frequently arise during this process
. As a microtubule extends from a spindle pole, it may attach incorrectly to a kinetochore. When this happens, the cell needs a way to detect the mistake, detach the problematic microtubule, and reattach it correctly. If the issue is not addressed and cell division proceeds, the chromosomes typically fail to divide evenly, resulting in cells with the wrong number of chromosomes.
This aberrant distribution of chromosomes can lead to cancer or premature cell death
.

To correct attachment problems, cells rely on a system of phosphorylation -- the addition of a phosphate group to certain proteins -- to control whether or not microtubules stay bound to the kinetochore.

According to the
Molecular Cell
paper, the enzyme Aurora B resides within the inner kinetochore and adds phosphates to a key player in the kinetochore, called the KMN network, that attaches to the microtubule. […]

"
This is a very sensitive system that allows the cell to dynamically respond to different attachment problems
," says Julie Welburn, first author of the Molecular Cell paper and a postdoctoral researcher in the Cheeseman lab.

DNA repair, DNA replication and chromosome dynamics are just a few examples where we find incredible error correction mechanisms in the cell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anything, it should humble those who believe that "anyone who is a scientist accepts evolution"

Almost all biologists do though and in this case those are the scientists that really matter. As i said above, there is 0 debate going on amongst the biological community whether evolution is true.

You'll find a lot of physicists or chemists or whatever saying they don't believe evolution and trying to shout the loudest they can but it is rather pointless.

or that "it is a fact that science has nothing to do with opinion/bias".

Haha, you'd be surprised. As someone who will probably wind up designing drugs in the pharmaceutical industry, this is definitely not true. Lots of dodgy stuff going on there.

Science is carried out systematically to tried exclude any biasing factors but the individual scientist themselves will always, of course, have views and opinions.

Here, we have a scientist question a finding on scientific grounds, believing that opinion/bias is involved. It's an eye-opener in this regard.

The problem is the theory of evolution is beyond that point though. It would be like someone trying to disprove gravity or a (approx) spherical earth.

I won't go on about it because its already been done in the other threads and a lot of the people who are still persistent in questioning will never listen to me anyway. Half of these people actively don't want to believe , they're proud they don't. I can't do anything about that.

The thing is this though, there is so evidence in favor of evolution. If someone finds any problems with evolution, we need to figure out how to see that problem in terms of evolution and develop it further, not totally throw evolution out the window. We're past that point for evolution as a scientific idea. DNA is dynamite evidence, molecular clock is dynamite evidence, we've seen bacteria evolve, we've observed animals evolving, we've even observed humans evolving (eg. sickle cell anaemia for protection in malaria stricken areas). The case is really closed at this point whether its been proven or not.

So, i think blogs like his aren't really helpful. In-fact, they could be actually harmful, detracting from any useful work he could be doing seeing these problems or gaps in the theory in terms of evolution and fixing them. It's sort of like someone persisting in their view the earth is flat and continuing to point out every little flaw in the idea the earth is round whenever they can, even though there is huge amounts of evidence in favour the earth is round. If they were a skilled geologist or astronomer, i would really like to see them work towards something useful.

I think i've talked about the earliy astronomers and logical positivists here before. They had a lot of evidence a certain planet existed, however, its orbit just didn't make sense. They had a lot of proof in favour of it but there were holes in the theory. They didn't just throw this idea of the planet totally out the window, its not like an innerrant theology, it can have mistakes, it can have errors, its not like the theology of a lot of you here where if there is one problem or one error, everything has to totally be thrown out the window. No, they kept going with their theory and found a way to justify these discrepancies in terms of that accepted theory of their planet. It turns out there was yet another undiscovered planet distorting the orbit. Same with Islam for a lot of you, i point out what i see to be issues like the problem of evil but you don't go throw your religion out the window. You find ways to hold your religion in terms of the evil that exists in this world. It's the same kind of idea. Just because there are a few minor problems in what is a very well evidenced idea, you dont throw it out the window.

Evolution is at that point where it has been proved beyond a doubt as a reasonable theory. We've seen things evolve in-front of our eyes. If you're talking speciation (things splitting off into different species) thats a slightly different kettle of fish but if you the reader equated evolution with the idea we evolved from apes, you clearly just dont know enough. Evolution is just a generalised theory that living things change in response to natural selection, its not just the theory that we came from apes.

They also spread a dangerous misconception that there is disagreement in scientific community about this issue, there isn't.

Edited by kingpomba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

Kingpomba

They also spread a dangerous misconception that there is disagreement in scientific community about this issue, there isn't.

I wouldn't know. I see a number of scientists claiming x and a number of scientists claiming y. I understand some of the arguments, and those I can judge. I can judge when someone uses the Bible to disprove evolution and when someone uses scientific jargon. I can judge when the arguments are based on premises I know as factual. For the rest, I just see x and y.

You mention almost all biologists. It makes me want to hear the arguments from the number of biologists which that formulation leaves out.

These are your heresies. Deal with them (in a scientific manner). The lay cannot be the judge for the experts. If you don't deal with the heresies, don't be surprised or disappointed if a class of laypeople become heretics.

Edited by Jebreil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Jebreil

(bismillah)

Mystic

These various molecular correction mechanisms are, of course, extremely improbable given evolution.

This appears to be his assumption - the rest is meant to follow.

The assumption is based on "probability", therefore allowing for your possibility.

He is arguing for its improbability, which does strengthen the suggestion that external factors were involved - perhaps teleological.

The question is: is it a correct assumption?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

Mystic

These various molecular correction mechanisms are, of course, extremely improbable given evolution.

This appears to be his assumption - the rest is meant to follow.

The assumption is based on "probability", therefore allowing for your possibility.

He is arguing for its improbability, which does strengthen the suggestion that external factors were involved - perhaps teleological.

The question is: is it a correct assumption?

Well life beginning is acknowledge as highly improbable by all scientist. But as far as this mechanism, why is it improbable to evolve this mechanism. And if it is just improbable, then I really don't see how that out right dismisses Darwinism. But given the context of what he is saying, he seems to deduce since all cells have this correction mechanisms now and tons of mistakes occur that needs correction, then in the past, tons of errors would occur. But it could be that a lot of errors occurred but not the extent it does today, and there was maintainable population growth, and eventually, those making a correction, would survive more, then eventually correction after correction, it became the norm to corrects tons of mistakes.

It can be improbable - but what he writes about cells now with correction and concludes based on that seems to be faulty logic unless he has a scientific reason why which he hasn't shown.

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...