DNA Analysis proves evolution

Quranexplorer wrote: airmano wrote: QE Nobody is sure if a species change will take thousand or million mutations�so the mutation rate can only be an assumption Inform yourself first please before making such statements, here: Mutation rate Airmano So do you mean you can define with certainty the mutation rate for each individual species? your wikipedia link doesn't say so: The upper and lower limits to which mutation rates can evolve is the subject of ongoing investigation.

No you can't define the exact rate of change of a species. But it is reasonable to give it a "somewhere between x and y" value.

This is altered by such things as exposure to stress such as starvation or extremes of temperature. If a population is subject to a toxin or aomething then the chance of a birth going to plan is less. The chance of a mutation happening is greater.

Also keep in mind that normally evolution has already optimized a species for its niche. If a zebra is born with more slender legs then it might run a little faster but it will probably break one of them. So that is probably a disadvantage. Not so for a race horse.

Ron Webb wrote: Your insistence on "observational evidence" (as you are defining it) is unrealistic and not in keeping with modern science. I don't have observational evidence that my parents ever had sex, either. Nonetheless, the evidence I do have is compelling. I don't need observational evidence, thanks!

Parenthood of a child is a matter of faith and trust between the parties involved until the point that trust is broken, beyond which it just falls in to that category of disputes which will have to be settled based on clear proofs. So if your endorsement of the theory of evolution is based on such faith and trust, then I have no problems, as I have made it clear countless times that I completely respect one's choice of his beliefs.

Now that you say TE is incapable to establish the kind of evidence that one would normally expect for the kind of claims made under TE, if you wish you may present whatever evidence you have--only in case you have it, don't trouble yourself too much [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" />

Ron Webb wrote: You still have this notion that there is some kind of species or creature barrier that needs to be overcome. I think you still don't understand that the species distinctions you are talking exist only for contemporary species. There is no clear line separating species as they evolve.Again, the analogy of the "tree of life" is helpful. If one looks at a horizontal cross-section of a tree, you will find distinct branches and twigs. If you traverse the tree vertically, however, you find continuous limbs from the root to the tips of the branches. There is no species or creature barrier to be crossed. If we can travel an inch, there is no reason in principle why we can't travel a hundred feet.

You agree the species distinction exists in contemporary species--so the species barrier is a reality now and you never see this barrier broken in reality. You then say the species barrier is a notion--that sounds a contradictory statement to me. I think the problem is that your arguments start with the premises that TE is a fact, but it is not and unless you break this notion you won't be able to look for objective evidence to prove this theory and that to me is something detrimental to the scientific methods--I think we have got more barriers to break than I initially thought [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" />

If things were so simple to say that travelling an inch automatically implies that you can travel a hundred feet, then I would suppose that with the same aircraft that goes up in the sky one can simply go to planets like Jupiter or Saturn�but it doesn�t happen so, there are barriers one need to cross to make such things happen and it doesn�t make any sense to blindly believe that such barriers are broken just like that, without any compelling evidence for such happenings.

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, and the number of known stars is less than 0.000000000001% (give or take a bunch of zeroes) of the total number of stars. That doesn't stop us from having a good understanding about the process of stellar evolution.

Are you saying stellar evolution is universally and unanimously accepted as a fact without any evidence or critical analyses, the same way you argue the theory of evolution should be accepted?

Ron Webb wrote: Yes, it's hard to be precise about the time scale. As I said, the transformations along the vertical axis of the tree of life are continuous and gradual. But we can definitely see the transformations. There is no assumption about that.

But the hypothesis that such transformations bring about species changes is an assumption.

Ron Webb wrote: I guess you missed the sarcasm. Sorry, but I'm not open for a critical analysis of the theory of universal gravitation, and I'm appalled that you apparently are. If you're that anti-science, there may not be much basis for us to discuss anything.For decades the "theory" of gravity has successfully piloted spacecraft to the moon, to Mars and beyond. This is despite the fact that there was absolutely no "observational" (by your definition) evidence, and scant experimental evidence at best, for it at the time.My point is that we don't need direct observation of a phenomemon to have confidence in the theory behind it. If we did, most of modern science (including the science that brought you the machine on which you are reading this) would not be possible.

By now I know you can�t even think of thinking something outside these theories�I just chose to ignore your sarcasm. [IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" align="middle" />

Even though I don�t see the gravitational field, I don�t see any need for me to dispute the theory of gravitation as there is a compelling observational evidence that an apple always falls down to the earth and it always happened and still happens that way whether Newton formulated his theory of universal gravitation or not.

I am not anti-science and I would say there is nothing more anti-science than saying that something is not open for critical analysis. In that case Einstein would have been anti-science that he chose to critically analyse Newtonian mechanics and modify it to fit for relativistic regimes. I am only against the idea of using science as an excuse to deny Allah�because that is such a poor excuse!


Edited by Quranexplorer - 18 April 2015 at 10:55am

airmano wrote: I think there is a fundamental principle in science you haven't understood. There is no natural constant we will ever know to 100% (well, may be Avogadros constant one day). Every constant (and even more other scientific values) do have an error bar. When you look at the very important "Plank constant: h" you'll find that the last two digits are written in parenthesis. This is our present limit of knowledge. But before you bring up your usual phrase of human imperfection: To how many digits did the Quran (correctly) forecast the gravitational constant: "G" again ? Airmano

Okay, so you are saying you can't define the mutation rates with certainty. For a change can we then see to what accuracy you can define the mutation rate for each species with the basis for those numbers?

I didn't know that Quran has defined "G" also. If you don't mind, can you please share the relevant verse so that I can have a look at it?

QE

I didn't know that Quran has defined "G" also. If you don't mind, can you please share the relevant verse so that I can have a look at it?

Gravity & Quran

Airmano