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  
ShiaGurl

Thoughts On Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Hello! I'm new posting and the reason why I have become part of this community is because there are some questions in life that I have that I cannot ask others in my family (either because they'll call me crazy or not understand me, not because of any shameful reasons).

Anyway, the point of my post is to ask what your thoughts on Evolution are. Please, if you are not informed on what evolution really means then try to refrain from merely giving negative comments. In my opinion, the evidence on evolution is overwhelming, to the extent that if it is not real then it must be to some extent true.

I am a true believer in Allah, but I'm not a native speaker of Arabic and find it difficult to read the Qur'an. I have it in my list of top things to learn, no need to comment on this. With the knowledge I do have however I find no clash whatsoever in the writings of our holy book and evolution... unless we were to take everything literally.

So what do you think? Some people call it a sin to find evolution feasible and call me names for appreciating the beauty of the mechanism. On the other hand, it just strengthens my believe in Allah that he could have possibly created us so perfectly and simply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard differing views from some of our scholars. I mean in principal, yes, mutations in DNA can arise to some favourable inherited traits. I think evolution is a fact but to what extent ?

 

Micro-evolution - i.e the diversity within a spiecies.(some tall some big, some longer necks, some more spots, some different structure. I.E one lion bigger than another, one different colour mane/eyes)

 

Or Macro-evolution - live originating from a single cell billions of years ago?

 

I go with micro for now, no muslim should have a problem with micro, but macro, i don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)  (salam)

 

There is no evolution, When Allah wants a new creation He just creates it. He doesn't need a mold or current species to turn them in something else. Birds were always birds, fishes were always fishes and mammals were always mammals. 

But, I would suggest you to be more precise, to ask more questions about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah)  (salam)

 

There is no evolution, When Allah wants a new creation He just creates it. He doesn't need a mold or current species to turn them in something else. Birds were always birds, fishes were always fishes and mammals were always mammals. 

But, I would suggest you to be more precise, to ask more questions about this.

 

Just stop.

Evolution and common descent is the best explanation for the evidence. Unless you have a better explanation that explains all the fossil and genetic evidence then just stop making these youngearth-creationist type comments and making shias look ignorant.

 

Also, this video might interest you OP. It relates to evolution and its consequences for theism and naturalism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stop.

Evolution and common descent is the best explanation for the evidence. Unless you have a better explanation that explains all the fossil and genetic evidence then just stop making these youngearth-creationist type comments and making shias look ignorant.

Also, this video might interest you OP. It relates to evolution and its consequences for theism and naturalism.

Instead to ignore the thread I posted my view...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much have you studied the subject?

 

I hold a BS in Biology and I seek to attain a masters degree in evolutionary studies, but I am afraid of the reaction I will get from my family and specially parents if they were to know this. This is why I want to get to know others' opinions before I jump into letting them know what my aims are.

 

So you can tell I have studied pretty much... I have taken condensed courses on evolution and it is always a fundamental part of every course I've taken, even the non-conventional sciences (social sciences, like psychology etc.). I've read Darwin... and much on the philosophical view on the aspect... so on and so far. Of course I still have much to learn, but I do understand what I'm talking about when I talk about evolution.

 

I'll be honest and say that when I first went to college I was extremely skeptical about the entire idea of evolution. But again, the evidence is just so overwhelming that I ended up being convinced. 

 

So I should ask further questions on the matter? Things that do not convince me about evolution, perhaps? What least could make sense to me or to anyone else is perhaps how we possibly evolved from a chimp-like ancestor. But then again, aren't the kufar (excuse my possibly misspelling) damned to end up as pigs and monkeys? I do not understand why a human ending up as an animal is any more or less convincing than us coming from animals.

 

Doesn't it say in the Holy scripture that God created life so that it has originated from water? Well, so did life emerge from water in Darwinian explanations. The first living thing emerged from water too. Evolution is not just a theory, it is how everything seems to fit in our perfect world.

 

And my friend Omer, please refrain from saying that. To answer life in the terms you are explaining is putting a stop to every possible opportunity we have to advance in science, medicine, and technology. Whether God created us from a single being and then made us evolve into different beings is just as or maybe even more amazing than saying he created each one of us from scratch.

 

And I am not a dualist either, btw. I do not believe that the soul and the body are to completely seperate entities. In my opinion, if one is hurt, the other also is. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't we go to the afterlife with our bodies? Both are interconnected and just like your body can't work without your thoughts well then your thoughts can't work without a brain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth itself is a mini version of evolution in which the embryo goes through multiple stages. Evolution does not go against religious teachings. 

Yes, this is true. Embryogenesis is another strong evidence of evolution. If we were to track all embryos, it would be very similar to what could have possibly happened through our evolutionary history.

 

 

I am forced to mention however, that we have to be careful with our wording. This is not a proof, but it is evidence that supports evolution. Contrary to popular belief, science is not something that is ever proved. Science is not facts, or at least the facts we usually think about. Nothing in science is 100% true. Science is nothing but a very close approximation to the truth, which is 95-99% true. This is what a fact is for science; a statement that 95-99% of the times hits the bull's eye. Science is the study of building in logic theories statements that are statistically fulfilling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead to ignore the thread I posted my view...

Thanks for giving your opinion and we all appreciate it. One small suggestion, leave your comments open to more questioning. Don't just put a blind stop to them because that way we would reach no closure :). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birth itself is a mini version of evolution in which the embryo goes through multiple stages. Evolution does not go against religious teachings. 

 

This is actually a really cool statement. 

I hold a BS in Biology and I seek to attain a masters degree in evolutionary studies, but I am afraid of the reaction I will get from my family and specially parents if they were to know this. This is why I want to get to know others' opinions before I jump into letting them know what my aims are.

 

So you can tell I have studied pretty much... I have taken condensed courses on evolution and it is always a fundamental part of every course I've taken, even the non-conventional sciences (social sciences, like psychology etc.). I've read Darwin... and much on the philosophical view on the aspect... so on and so far. Of course I still have much to learn, but I do understand what I'm talking about when I talk about evolution.

 

I'll be honest and say that when I first went to college I was extremely skeptical about the entire idea of evolution. But again, the evidence is just so overwhelming that I ended up being convinced. 

 

So I should ask further questions on the matter? Things that do not convince me about evolution, perhaps? What least could make sense to me or to anyone else is perhaps how we possibly evolved from a chimp-like ancestor. But then again, aren't the kufar (excuse my possibly misspelling) damned to end up as pigs and monkeys? I do not understand why a human ending up as an animal is any more or less convincing than us coming from animals.

 

Doesn't it say in the Holy scripture that God created life so that it has originated from water? Well, so did life emerge from water in Darwinian explanations. The first living thing emerged from water too. Evolution is not just a theory, it is how everything seems to fit in our perfect world.

 

And my friend Omer, please refrain from saying that. To answer life in the terms you are explaining is putting a stop to every possible opportunity we have to advance in science, medicine, and technology. Whether God created us from a single being and then made us evolve into different beings is just as or maybe even more amazing than saying he created each one of us from scratch.

 

And I am not a dualist either, btw. I do not believe that the soul and the body are to completely seperate entities. In my opinion, if one is hurt, the other also is. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but don't we go to the afterlife with our bodies? Both are interconnected and just like your body can't work without your thoughts well then your thoughts can't work without a brain.

 

I think your best bet is to do what you are good at and interested in doing. Regardless of what other people think of the material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! I'm new posting and the reason why I have become part of this community is because there are some questions in life that I have that I cannot ask others in my family (either because they'll call me crazy or not understand me, not because of any shameful reasons).

Anyway, the point of my post is to ask what your thoughts on Evolution are. Please, if you are not informed on what evolution really means then try to refrain from merely giving negative comments. In my opinion, the evidence on evolution is overwhelming, to the extent that if it is not real then it must be to some extent true.

I am a true believer in Allah, but I'm not a native speaker of Arabic and find it difficult to read the Qur'an. I have it in my list of top things to learn, no need to comment on this. With the knowledge I do have however I find no clash whatsoever in the writings of our holy book and evolution... unless we were to take everything literally.

So what do you think? Some people call it a sin to find evolution feasible and call me names for appreciating the beauty of the mechanism. On the other hand, it just strengthens my believe in Allah that he could have possibly created us so perfectly and simply.

See they not how Allah originates creation, then repeats it: truly that is easy for Allah. 

Say: "Travel through the earth and see how Allah did originate creation; so will Allah produce a later creation: for Allah has power over all things.

Ankabut 19-20.~

 

Salam~

Quran asks us to seek knowledge about how the world around us function, how it starts , how it will end. I think as long as you keep it in mind that evolution is but a theory that is challenged even from within the scientific community and if it wasn't for this propaganda against anything religious, I think it would be as fairly debatable as the cosmos theories (big bang, universe expansion, parallel universes etc). I've read few things about the applications of evolution theory, mainly in neurobehavioral science and i found them to be good explanations.

On the other hand, I hope you don't end up being one of the evolution worshippers like some members here, it is just theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Embryogenesis isn't like the standard account of evolution. It doesn't use undirected random mutation and natural selection.

 

I dont think I had ever said it did.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem I see with theistic evolution is that it implies that there aren't any kind of boundaries or points of demarcation between species (there are no species at all in fact). According to evolution everything is in the process of transformation (so there aren't any particular kinds of species or for that matter "things"). And this goes against our experience of the world.

The other problem is that Evolution seems to conflict with the self-evident truth that the qualitatively lesser cannot cause the qualitatively greater.

In order not to go against certain logical principles and common sense the fossil records ought to be interpreted in light of the traditional and metaphysical point of view which is that all entities and all species (all of creation) were created in eternity all at once. All of creation exists in a dimension beyond terrestrial time and space, but appear (or descend) in terrestrial time and space in stages (as we see in the fossil records).

Terrestrial time and space is not a container for entities. Rather we should understand that without the entities, time and space simply wouldn't exist. For each species to descend gradually means therefore that terrestrial time and space is also descending gradually. Even now, terrestrial life is continuously falling lower and lower away from its origin. In fact this is the reason why fewer miracles occur now than they did in the past (because the very conditions of terrestrial life were different). So it is possible to speak of species "condensing" and solidifying and becoming manifest materially at certain points as the whole of terrestrial life becomes increasingly (or more and more) condensed and solidified.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem I see with theistic evolution is that it implies that there aren't any kind of boundaries or points of demarcation between species (there are no species at all in fact). According to evolution everything is in the process of transformation (so there aren't any particular kinds of species or for that matter "things"). And this goes against our experience of the world.

 

Quantum mechanics goes against our experience of the world as well. This has no bearing on the success of quantum mechanics. 

 

The other problem is that Evolution seems to conflict with the self-evident truth that the qualitatively lesser cannot cause the qualitatively greater.

 

 

You are using obscurantist language. I am not even sure what you mean by this statement, but I think cosmic evolution disproves your assertion because small things (H,He atom) can create indeed bigger things (C, O, N, etc)

 

In order not to go against certain logical principles and common sense the fossil records ought to be interpreted in light of the traditional and metaphysical point of view which is that all entities and all species (all of creation) were created in eternity all at once. All of creation exists in a dimension beyond terrestrial time and space, but appear (or descend) in terrestrial time and space in stages (as we see in the fossil records).

Terrestrial time and space is not a container for entities. Rather we should understand that without the entities, time and space simply wouldn't exist. For each species to descend gradually means therefore that terrestrial time and space is also descending gradually. Even now, terrestrial life is continuously falling lower and lower away from its origin. In fact this is the reason why fewer miracles occur now than they did in the past (because the very conditions of terrestrial life were different). So it is possible to speak of species "condensing" and solidifying and becoming manifest materially at certain points as the whole of terrestrial life becomes increasingly (or more and more) condensed and solidified.

 

Nope, we don't fit our theories to pre-conceived notions of what is considered "logical" or some sort of nebulous concept of "common sense", which differs from person to person. This is a common trap that leads you to confirmation bias and blinkered thinking.

 

What you are saying sounds a lot like the concept of Platonic Solids. The Greeks thought perfect representations of mathematical objects lived in an alternate dimension and we could only get imperfect replicas of these objects in the terrestrial realm. Sounds like you are proposing a biological analog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are using obscurantist language. I am not even sure what you mean by this statement, but I think cosmic evolution disproves your assertion because small things (H,He atom) can create indeed bigger things (C, O, N, etc)

There is an intelligently designed system which makes this happen. E.g. consider the fine-tuning which allows for the triple-alpha process.

Edited by Muhammed Ali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem I see with theistic evolution is that it implies that there aren't any kind of boundaries or points of demarcation between species (there are no species at all in fact). According to evolution everything is in the process of transformation (so there aren't any particular kinds of species or for that matter "things"). And this goes against our experience of the world.

The other problem is that Evolution seems to conflict with the self-evident truth that the qualitatively lesser cannot cause the qualitatively greater.

In order not to go against certain logical principles and common sense the fossil records ought to be interpreted in light of the traditional and metaphysical point of view which is that all entities and all species (all of creation) were created in eternity all at once. All of creation exists in a dimension beyond terrestrial time and space, but appear (or descend) in terrestrial time and space in stages (as we see in the fossil records).

Terrestrial time and space is not a container for entities. Rather we should understand that without the entities, time and space simply wouldn't exist. For each species to descend gradually means therefore that terrestrial time and space is also descending gradually. Even now, terrestrial life is continuously falling lower and lower away from its origin. In fact this is the reason why fewer miracles occur now than they did in the past (because the very conditions of terrestrial life were different). So it is possible to speak of species "condensing" and solidifying and becoming manifest materially at certain points as the whole of terrestrial life becomes increasingly (or more and more) condensed and solidified.

 

Would someone be so kind as to translate this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an intelligently designed system which makes this happen. E.g. consider the fine-tuning which allows for the triple-alpha process.

 

It doesn't change the fact that the qualitatively lesser can create the qualitatively greater, regardless of perceived intelligence. 

Edited by EthidiumIodide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution in the Darwinian sense is completely contradictory to religion (Islam not excepted), if it is the case that it argues that all of existence is meaningless and purposeless because all of creation cannot be without purpose or meaning as this would imply either negligence or deficiency of intelligence of Allah (SWT) and would mean that He (SWT) is not in fact All Knowing. Indeed, even an atom that is superfluous in creation would negate Allah's (SWT) omnipotence. 

 

One of the most interesting inherent contradictions that I have encountered in my very short study of evolution is that it is a system that is based on no truth but yet the proponents of evolution will vociferously defend it as the only "true" explanation of how life came about and evolved. The sheer absurdity of this is literally mind numbing. Additionally, if it is claimed that the scientific methodology is the only "truth" one holds on to then that statement is another inherently self contradictory statement because the "truth" of the scientific methodology cannot be proven by the scientific method itself. Therefore, the Darwinian evolutionist cannot escape holding to a certain truth i.e. evolution (because he or she does not want to give any ground to the theistic alternative of creation), but they SIMULTANEOUSLY hold on to the fact that Darwinian evolution is in effect an undeniable fact. It would be interesting to think what a Darwinian evolutionists thinks purposeless means when they undoubtedly spent countless hours of their lives dedicating precious brain power to validating a theory that denies any purpose.

 

Please refer to my review of the book objections sustained in the books section of this site for a bit of perhaps interesting analysis of a critique of Darwinism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I dont see any reason to believe that acceptance of darwinian evolution somehow negates purpose or truth of Allah.

 

The predominant number of people, statistically who support evolution, are theists. So to say that supporting the theory somehow removes meaning and purpose from the universe is just...it doesnt make any sense.

 

I feel like there should be more theistic supporters, at least with regards to muslims ive met.

 

I remember one time, it was at madrasa and my teacher actually, he took the word "evolutionists" and used it in a lecture to teach the class (predominantly grade schoolers) that evolutionists were more or less atheist heathens who believed in a meaningless universe (just as the guy above is saying).

 

I proceeded to speak up and to say, hey...ya know, the two arent necessarily related.  He then basically lost control of himself and started "spazzing" out when he realized he wasnt familiar with the actual science.

 

What im trying to get at is, we need more muslim scientists.  Actual scientists, not guys on forums who use google (not that i dont respect a lot of u guys). Not religious people who are too staunchly conservative to understand anything but what theyve been taught. Actual scientists. Religious leaders are leaders of religion.  They arent necesserily leaders in philosophy, nor leaders in science.  Theyre about religion, and what they can do is great.  Its amazing the knowledge you will find amongst some religious leaders.  But at the end of the day, they arent scientists, and its up to everyone else, to become leaders in science or philosophy, or anything else, to essentially teach religious leaders, so that they can improve their own teachings, so that everyone else can straighten things out for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please excuse me posting this, without going through the entire thread. I am obviously not a biologist, but this is what I can figure of the whole thing.

 

By the definition of Evolution theory, we are essentially another animal. But the wisest and closest living relative of our, Chimp., have not invented a bicycle at their own till today. So I would simply ask in layman terms, what is so special about me, when I am just another animal. And I am (humans) now at this point, where I am looking to step on the mars. Evolution theory to my best understanding does not cover or for that matter in any other scientific research, that can comprehensibly conclude, that why our intelligence level is exceptionally higher than rest of the animal kingdom. 

 

Although I don't believe Evolution is theory is completely wrong. It's very much correct, and I will tell you later why.

 

Another point that always irritates me, is it merely a coincidence, that our physical body is very much perfect to compliment our intelligence, let me give you a layman example, suppose we have had the physical body like Elephants or Snakes? Obviously I don't believe we would have ever come thus far. So the point is, our brain is supported by the best or idealistic physical structure.  And I can not believe this would be merely a coincidence. 

 

I know, for a biologist this is not going to make any sense, however  I believe, the statement, that God created Neanderthals as the prototype for the final product 'homo Sapiens' is as correct as saying' neanderthals were our ancestors.   If you deeply study both statements, you would find they are the same, but the perspective is totally different.

 

This is a cool post i think.

 

You said, what is so special about me (if I am an animal).

 

Well, regardless of if were an animal or anything else...we still are what we are.  We are creations or of the creation of Allah.  Which, if you ask me, is pretty cool.  The entire animal kingdom and all life on earth and even non life, is pretty amazing.  Even the lowest of animals, even snakes, are so amazingly complex and special.  So, i think its about how you view things.  What is so special about any of us?  Well, atheist or theist, most people do not deny how "miraculous" it all is.

 

Then he mentioned our physical body being perfect to compliment our intelligence.  I dont know about that though, my back is hurting as we speak from standing up all day.  I grow very tired, if i do not eat regularly (in contrast to something like a crocodile).  Our wrists and upper arms are thin.  Anyone who snowboards or skateboards, knows how east it is to break them.

 

My toe nails, may become ingrown. My eyes, dont allow me to see behind myself.  My jaw, too small to hold my teeth.  I wear glasses because my vision just isnt that good without them.  Without braces, my teeth would more or less be in much worse shape.

 

The perfection of the human body is no more or less perfect than any other animal out here.  Yes we have our brain, which makes us dominant over some things.  But were very much vulnerable to many other things that other animals are not.  All it takes is a plague to whipe us all out.

 

And its not a coincidence, its taken ya know, over a billion years to get here.  Many had to live and die before us for us to have the physical form we do now.

 

I wonder, a million years from now, when people are of a new species, what will everyone say then? Humans were the prototypes for X.  X was the prototype for Y etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I have got your point. But I don't think neither crocodile nor a hawk nor for that matter any other animal being given our brain could have come thus far :)

 

I didn't make that point without ignoring the powers of other animals. But still they are a no match for me ;)

 

So you are essentially saying if Elephants or any other animal or any bird had our brain, they would have been equally successful as we are?

 

I was referring to perfect in a sense, it fully supports our brain, I never said, we are 'superman' or a superman is the standard for the perfect physical body  ;)

 

 

Animals like an elephant or crocodile or bird cant really have a brain like ours, because their bodies arent physically built for it.

 

Our body had to evolve to support the brain, just as a crocodiles body had to support its dietary or breath holding or locomotive or jaw strength traits, or just as a hawk had to evolve to support its great vision, or its hallowed bones, or its feathers etc.

 

So, your question cannot really be answered.  I mean, i could say yes, if a bird evolved a brain like ours, it would be just as successful, but that would mandate that it evolve physical traits that would allow it to capitalize on the brain that it would have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing you are a biologist, care to link me to any scientific research that validates above statement.

 

 

Again, why Elephants could not have a brain like this? link?

 

If youre...judging the theory of evolution, with the assumption that it itself doesnt occur, then of course nothing will sound reasonable for you*.

 

My statement was made based on the fossil record, and how brain capacity of hominids increased over time.  You mentioned for example, neanderthals would be, in a sense prototypes.  Well, other historic prototypes, dating back a million years, had progressively smaller brains. 

 

This is why i brought up the flaws of our body.  The whole thing about having too many teeth for my head to hold (I have wisdom teeth that ill never use).  Jaws also shrank over time in the progression of these prototypes.  Our backs are weak because theyre shaped in a way that really hasnt perfected upright walking.  We have to constantly stuff ourselves with food to maintain our brain. Which in a sense is almost like a weakness, being so dependent upon so much food, to the extent that we would farm and eat others to survive.

 

Anyway...

 

So yes, my statement made above is based on the fossil record.  And this probably isnt a place to break down the discussion, but i do actually have some posts i have already made, let me see if i can find them.

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234996509-the-age-of-the-earth/

 

This one is probably helpful, it just breaks down how the fossil succession is recognized through dating of the earth.

 

And for the second question, you asked why couldnt elephants have brains like ours.  Well, thats like asking why an elephant cant have a heart like ours.  It doesnt really make any sense, they would just instantly die unless their entire physical body changed in a way which accomodated it.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am guessing you are a biologist, care to link me to any scientific research that validates above statement.

 

I had simply asked for a scientific research or even worse a wikipedia article that validates your above statement. Which explicitly says ' our body had to evolve to support the brain '. Or do you believe you have enough scientific authority, that the above of your post, constitutes as a valid scientific research at its own.

 

the part you missed, which was typed later than you posted your above reply.

 

In other words you're saying, If we put our brain in the elephants they would evolve to humans-like-body in lets say 5000 billions years?

and it is also flawed, because our 'brain' was not a magical piece of meat wandering around in the wild, and suddenly it found a body and the body started to evolve to serve its master - the brain.

 

What do you think im going to sit down and hold an entire seminar? haha.

 

Oh ok, sorry i didnt realize you had edited your post.

 

Well, you cant just put a human brain into an elephant.  The elephant and the brain would have to evolve simultaneously.  And it would take much longer than 5 thousand years.  Naturally at least, we are talking about a change that would take, tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions of years.

 

I posted a link in my last post though, its on the age of the earth and dating methods that are used in determining how the fossil succession exists.

 

Which is giving me the basis to make the claim about prototypes with decreasing brain capacity as we go back in time.

 

My words, are a summary of countless research papers.  If you really really want to, i can get one, but it wont tell us anything that I am not already saying right now.

 

I just read your last sentence there, one sec and ill dig one up.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No link to a research that prove your statement. that 'our body had to evolve to support our brain'.

 

If you want to play on words, join me in the off-topic forum sometime, I am a hella talkative person. I won't let you feel bored. :) But I am done here, unless you prove your point by any authentic scientific research. see ya 

 

Im not playing with words at all.  Any paleo paper on the development of the brain over time would support that claim.

 

I personally dont feel like renewing my subscription to any particular journal to show you.  One sec though and ill find a free one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, heres a good start.

 

http://www.academia.edu/466406/Astronomical_calibration_of_the_Maastrichtian_Late_Cretaceous_

 

Its basically just an article that touches on the precision of various dating methods used to understand earth history.  This particular article isnt about fossils found within specific layers, but just for starters, understanding the fossil succession is necessery in understanding how life progressed on earth throughout time.

 

This particular article is discussing a topic that is...worked with throughout hundreds and hundreds of independent research papers. Which is essentially what is necessery to build an understanding of how the fossil succession exists.  We are talking about, hundreds of independent methods of dating that are correlated and they reference eachother over a pretty hefty amount of research and publications.

 

Once you recognize this, you can make judgement on what exists in nature. You can say...ok, over time, hominid fossil skulls actually grew in their capacity, along with the...all sorts of stuff.  There are research papers on fossils as they transition to bipedal walking,

 

http://carta.anthropogeny.org/moca/topics/placement-foramen-magnum

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248413001681

 

The position of bones in the necks of hominids, along with the transitioning skull capacities and the hip bone transitions, the way hominids walked etc.

 

There are thousands of research papers on each of these.  I could sit and just post publication after publication, but its kind of just known.  If you know what is being published, you know these articles exist.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842428/

 

Im sure you will disregard these,

 

 

The point is though, as ive said before, my statement comes from what the fossil succession demonstates.  This succession, if you look at the sequence of fossils over time, one thing you will notice is, as hominid skulls increase in size over time, so do their backs with respect to walking up right.  Their hips also with respect to walking up right.  How our feet hold us, right the shape of our feet.  The shape of our spinal cord, the shape of how the spinal cord connects into our skull and how we are able to move our necks.  Its all there in the fossils, transitioning over time.  Every detail you can see transitioning little by little, until theyre almost like us, up to just the most recent rock layers.

 

Its like, if i took a cake, and at the bottom of the cake i have old rocks, and at the surface of the cake, younger rocks.  The older rocks have small brained fossils, and as we go to the surface the brain increases little by little with each layer, until its almost like the one we have today, then we reach the surface of the cake and here we are.

 

tiktaalik.jpg

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^My lord, you are haughty, pretentious, and full of hubris. You lack even a cursory understanding of evolution, yet you speak as if you alone hold all the answers.

Yes, brains can never be separated from bodies in the case of tetrapods. If any change happened in the brain or body, other portions would be selected for.

Yes, evolution is undirected, but in order to succeed, some things Have to be done, like change color. Of course, not purposefully, since one can't control the genes one expresses.

Hopefully your atheist cousins can defend their pet theory and talk to you about these very basic aspects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you disregarded my words as I assumed you would. My statement that an animals body would have to evolve to suit a human brain is purely hypothetical and unrealistic. I simply played along with your silly question as to whether or not other animals could survive with our brain.

Anyway, i will move on unless you would like to address my post about the succession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just looked at exactly what you were quoting there.

 

What in the world are you talking about?

 

I made the statement below

 

"Our body had to evolve to support the brain, just as a crocodiles body had to support its dietary or breath holding or locomotive or jaw strength traits, or just as a hawk had to evolve to support its great vision, or its hallowed bones, or its feathers etc."

 

I also said

 

"Well, you cant just put a human brain into an elephant.  The elephant and the brain would have to evolve simultaneously. " Because the Brain is what makes an elephant an elephant.

 

What i meant was, our body simply had to evolve in conjunction with the evolution of the developing brain.  In order to support the brain we have now, it must exist in a particular way.  Just as, in order for the brain to exist as it does now, the body would have to exist in a particular way.  Theyre together.  Right, you cant have a human body without a human head.  It doesnt make any sense.

 

Then you said...

 

"The natural selection theory never says, insects who evolved their body colors to match the colors of leaves, survived."

 

Youre playing with words.  Animals that evolved in a way which benefitted/mandated their survival...survived. 

 

"It merely says, the insects who have had green color that matched with the leaves, survived. whereas you are implying the insects had to evolve their body colors to survive."

 

Your entire rebuttal/ignorance of my previous post, revolves around semantics.  An insect had to evolve to survive.  Thats basically what you said in that last sentence, which is true.  Yes, the insect had to evolve to survive, but thats not to say that it chose to evolve to survive. Thats not to say that the insect species all just woke up one day and was like...yup, gonna turn green.  Then did so and survived.  I have to...digest food to survive, but i dont choose to digest food.

 

This is pointless.  Why am i even talking to this guy? Moving on.

 

The human body had to evolve in conjunction with the developing brain to survive.  But thats not to say that the body just decided to evolve. The alternative to the body and brain not evolving in conjunction with eachother, would be death.  So, ok, the animal doesnt 'have' to evolve with its brain, but if it doesnt, itll end up dead.

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

 

Anyway....

 

We need a greater quantity of more conservative muslims to step in and to participate in these discussions from both sides of the table.

 

I feel like, a lot of muslims a very willing to stand on the...conservative side and to oppose ideas of common descent.  Whereas those that do not oppose it, many just dont speak up.   We need more prominant, intelligent, scientific muslims. We have a ton of Imams and maulanas, and a whole lot of philosophy/Theology muslims.  We need more scientific minds, and im not talking about google experts.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You clearly have no idea what youre talking about.

 

Im done here.


It all began from this.

 

is it mere a coincidence that ' we apparently have a body, that support our brain in a way, that we have reached thus far ' a layman example was given, suppose we have had an elephant like body, it's unlikey we had reached thus far, in term of technological advances and others. 

 

1. You first tried to prove, our body is not adequate with pretty childish excuses. and it's no big deal. but later you backed out. 

 

2. Later you came up with your conclusions drew from your own research, that our 'body had to evolve to support our brain', which even the highest elite of qualified persons I have spoken to, never made such claim as you did.

 

3. Later I gave you a link to 'natural selection' which you are totally ignoring, and Salman Khan of khan academy which is funded by Bill Gates, made it clear in the beginning of his video that the misconception revolving around the 'evolution theory' is people think 'species change themselves'. Exactly what you were saying, that something 'had to change or evolve' - you never bothered to comment on the opening remarks of Salman Khan on that video. Here it is again. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/evolution-and-natural-selection/v/introduction-to-evolution-and-natural-selection

 

Finally I'd like to know, what kind of degree you are pursuing in biology. I want to make sure, that I am not just banging my head against the wall. 

 

 

Sigh, let me go ahead and respond.  Lets see what you have.

 

"1. You first tried to prove, our body is not adequate with pretty childish excuses. and it's no big deal. but later you backed out."

 

I have no idea what youre talking about with this.

 

"2. Later you came up with your conclusions drew from your own research, that our 'body had to evolve to support our brain',"

 

It did have to evolve to support the brain, just as the brain had to evolve to support it.  The body and the brain had to evolve in conjunction with eachother or we wouldnt be able to exist as we do.

 

Like i said before, im not saying the body decided that it had no choice but to evolve to keep up with a super brain.  Im saying, the body in history, evolved with the brain.  If it didnt, we wouldnt exist as we do.

 

Ill watch your video now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, i just watched the beginning of the video. 

 

I am not disagreeing with anything he is saying, nor are my words in contradiction with his.

 

This is purely a discussion of semantics, and the guy in the video supports the theory of evolution as well.

 

So, ill just allow you to promote his video, its fine by me.


This is the battle cry, why didn't our body evolve then like an elephant-shape. why it evolved into something, which is perfect to use tools etc. 

 

Because the traits of the human body were selected for in our own lineage. Not in that of an elephants.

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...