DNA Analysis proves evolution

Tim: Like that? Er, no...

You're almost there! Just put the slash between the left squared bracket and the word "Quote" like: [/Quote] at the end of your citation. Precede your quotation with the keyword "Quote" in (squared brackets) as told.
I can't give you a direct example otherwise it will transform my explanation to a quotation where the keywords are invisible.

Regards: Airmano

Edited by airmano - 21 October 2015 at 12:06am

Ron Webb wrote: Agreed, but we're not trying to do a one-to-one match. We're matching populations. Yes, there could have been a particular individual's DNA introduced at some point in the genetic history of another individual, which has left no genetic markers. But that doesn't matter. We're analysing the markers that are there; and those markers show common ancestry with chimps etc.

Once we agree a one to one genetic match is not possible using DNA, then it should not be much difficult to acknowledge the fact that any population level genetic analysis using DNA cannot provide an empirical scientific evidence to "prove" evolution, as there are further approximations and assumptions involved in a population level genetic analysis. Please note that I am talking about definitive scientific evidence to "prove" a theory, there is no harm in somebody using DNA analysis as a speculative evidence just like the other so called evidences, if he wishes so--but there is nothing in DNA analysis to "prove" evolution.

Ron Webb wrote: You mean you won't be convinced until we've DNA-sequenced every single species on earth? That could take a while...

It's not a matter of me or any other individual being convinced. It's all about whether a theory can produce the empirical evidence to justify itself be called "scientifically proved"--TE relies on guesstimates as evidences and fail to produce any such empirical evidence. So people could choose to believe it or not, but it's not fair to misrepresent it as a fact when it is not.

Ron Webb wrote: We are not able to confirm that spectral analysis works over millions of light-years distance, any more than we are able to confirm that DNA analysis works over millions of generations of time. But of course there is no reason to suppose that it wouldn't, in either case. If you want to argue that the extrapolation is unreliable, you need to come up with a theory to explain why it might be unreliable.And you can't argue that it is unreliable because we can't distinguish individuals at a distance of millions of generations. That's like saying spectral analysis is unreliable if we can't distinguish individual molecules at great distances. We're not trying to do that.

Spectral analysis has worked on the full scope of chemical analysis on the earth and that is confirmed with observation too. Then you apply it in a different scenario on the stars and assume the results are reliable, and if somebody feels there are any issues that is still open for scientific evaluations, I would suppose. I don't think anybody is going to make definitive statements like "Spectral analysis of stars is proved" and that's it!

DNA analysis has not worked on the full scope of evolution even in a single case in any given scenario , but you still want to jump to conclude that evolution is "proved" based on DNA analysis--where is the comparison between spectral analysis and DNA analysis?

Ron Webb wrote: We can't precisely know the kinetic energy of a single molecule in a cloud of gas (if only because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle). However, we can measure very precisely the average kinetic energy of the entire cloud. We call that the "temperature" of the gas.

Temperature is a defined property that can be independently measured empirically, irrespective of whether one knows the individual kinetic energy of the molecules or not.

Population level DNA is not a property that can be independently measured empirically, it essentially is an approximation of the individual level DNAs.

Ron Webb wrote: I'm saying no one has ever directly observed a neutrino, or the earth's core. We have plenty of empirical evidence of other kinds.

But the problem with TE is that nobody has directly observed evolution happening and all the so called evidences also fall under the speculative category and not empirical.

Ron Webb wrote: I am assuming no Creator, unless/until someone can provide evidence of His existence. In the same way that I assume the non-existence of Russell's Celestial Teapot, the Tooth Fairy, and Big Foot. Without applying Occam's Razor to such unsubstantiated claims, the world would very quickly become overcrowded with all sorts of bizarre imaginary entities which could neither be proven nor disproven.

So ultimately that boils down to a matter of choice when the existing methods are incapable of establishing an evidence for the creator.

Ron Webb wrote: There is also no guarantee that reason will guide you to the true God, or the true faith. Unfortunately, reason is all we have.

For me that sounds very pessimistic--to stick to something that you are unsure will guide you to the truth, in spite of having other alternatives. I would rather look for further guidance that can help where my reason is incapable and to the examples set by those who could practically demonstrate this in their lives--that's exactly what I find when I choose to sincerely follow the Quran and the life of prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Ron Webb wrote: I suppose one could eliminate doubt by abandoning reason and adopting an arbitrary faith, but that is not the way to truth. Anyway, why do you want to be "out of the state of doubt"? Doubt is just another word for wonder. Why would you want the world to be less wonderful than it is?

There is no abandoning of reason, there is only acknowledging the limitation of human reason. There is no problem in using doubt and questions in search of the truth, but denying things that are clearly beyond the domain of human reason, in the name of reason, is not a fair thing to do.

Ron Webb wrote: It seems to me that most of the turbulence in the modern world is caused by "true believers" of one kind or another.

I would personally count it a big failure if I am to judge a religion by the atrocities of some groups or by the efforts of some other groups to portray those atrocities as representing the religion. If I can do so much due diligence in selecting the mobile phone brand that I want to buy, shouldn't I do at least some diligence in understanding what is true religion and what is not, which really decides the purpose of my existence--if I can't do even that ,of what use is the faculties that Allah has bestowed me with.

Ron Webb wrote: Gosh, why do theists keep harping on this "pride" thing? If anything, it seems to me that it is the "true believers" who are motivated by pride. I am content to admit that there are many things about the world that I just don't know. I don't pretend to have any mystical insights or superior knowledge that I can't prove. That would be false pride.

I don't feel motivated by pride or claim to have some superior knowledge by being a believer. It is only that I don't feel the need to believe that my reason is superior to any other knowledge that is available around. I feel no problem in accepting a creator whose wisdom exceeds mine, and for me man's failure to reason out the universe stands testimony to the superior wisdom of the creator.

Ron Webb wrote: As for Pascal's Wager, it doesn't work for two reasons. First is the obvious one: I can't choose to believe something that just doesn't make sense to me, and pretending to have a belief that I don't actually have is not going to fool an omniscient God for a moment. If anything my hypocrisy might make Him even angrier.Besides, how do we know that God even wants us to believe in Him? It seems to me that if an omnipotent God truly wanted me to believe, He would have no difficulty convincing me of His existence. On the contrary, He seems to keep a remarkably low profile.Perhaps it's just the opposite. Perhaps He is like a researcher running a psychology experiment. It is important that the subjects of the experiment are not aware that their behaviour is being monitored and manipulated, because that awareness would distort the results.Maybe God wants to see who will do the right thing simply because it is the right thing, and not because of any imagined rewards or punishments in some afterlife. Maybe He will be angry with you because you are pretending to know Him and trying to tell others about Him. Maybe you are ruining His experiment.

I think the reasons that you mentioned for denying a creator would work only under 2 assumptions: 1) you have got the perfect reasoning ability 2) your wisdom exceeds that of an ultimate creator. As we know both these assumptions are not true, the whole thing just becomes more of a personal choice.

Firstly, to not believe in something that doesn't makes sense to you just means you are making a choice and that is only a choice and not something that is justified based on a proof or evidence.

Second, I don't know how reasonable it is to think that a creator's wisdom has to be aligned with each of his creations, or to think that a creator has to fulfill the whims and fancies of each of his creations to prove his existence. Even in a worldly situation you would find someone with a higher negotiating power always having the upper hand in deciding the terms. So would it be reasonable to think that a creator who is free of all wants and depends in no way whatsoever on his creatures to act in a way according to the wishes of his creations? In a normal situation it would be other way around, the subjects would be just left to find their way to the master.

Despite all these, Allah out of his infinite mercy had sent prophets to each of the generations to guide them to the true path and with prophet Muhammad (pbuh) he has completed his prophetic missions with the final revelation for all mankind that is the Quran. And it is not that Allah wants humans to behave in a certain way, if he wants that he can do that easily, but the fact is that humans have been bestowed with a certain free will to make a choice in this probationary life. So it remains each one's responsibility to use that free will to proper use. I would rather use that free will to show my gratitude to Allah for the infinite mercies that he has shown to me, by living a righteous life, than trying to judge the creator's wisdom which obviously is beyond my capability.

Quranexplorer wrote: Once we agree a one to one genetic match is not possible using DNA, then it should not be much difficult to acknowledge the fact that any population level genetic analysis using DNA cannot provide an empirical scientific evidence to "prove" evolution, as there are further approximations and assumptions involved in a population level genetic analysis.

Which is like saying that if we can't locate individual molecules in a star a million light years away, therefore we can't accurately locate the star itself.  No, this is classic fallacy of composition.  Properties of individuals cannot automatically be applied to the group as a whole.

Spectral analysis has worked on the full scope of chemical analysis on the earth and that is confirmed with observation too. Then you apply it in a different scenario on the stars and assume the results are reliable, and if somebody feels there are any issues that is still open for scientific evaluations, I would suppose. I don't think anybody is going to make definitive statements like "Spectral analysis of stars is proved" and that's it!

Insofar as science would ever describe something as "proved", spectral analysis is proved in general, and therefore applies to objects millions of light years away exactly as it applies to any other scenario.  No scientist doubts it.  Similarly, DNA analysis has been proven in general, and no scientist doubts that it works exactly the same for millions of generations as for one or two.

Population level DNA is not a property that can be independently measured empirically, it essentially is an approximation of the individual level DNAs.

So what does it mean to speak of "human DNA"?  Is that not a property that is independent of individual DNA?

But the problem with TE is that nobody has directly observed evolution happening and all the so called evidences also fall under the speculative category and not empirical.

So in your opinion do the existence of neutrinos, and the nature of the earth's core, remain speculative?

So ultimately that boils down to a matter of choice when the existing methods are incapable of establishing an evidence for the creator.

Is it a matter of choice whether or not to assume the existence of the Celestial Teapot?  Surely for reasonable people the "choice" is clear.

For me that sounds very pessimistic--to stick to something that you are unsure will guide you to the truth, in spite of having other alternatives. I would rather look for further guidance that can help where my reason is incapable and to the examples set by those who could practically demonstrate this in their lives--that's exactly what I find when I choose to sincerely follow the Quran and the life of prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Pessimistic or not, my point is that we do not have alternatives.  What, if not reason, guides your choice of the Quran and Muhammad as the "true religion"?  And if it is reason that guides you to religion, then surely your confidence in that religion can be no greater than your confidence in your own reasoning abilities.

I don't feel motivated by pride or claim to have some superior knowledge by being a believer.

Do you not think that you are superior to nonbelievers?  Because the Quran 3:139 (among many other passages) certainly seems to say so.

Firstly, to not believe in something that doesn't makes sense to you just means you are making a choice and that is only a choice and not something that is justified based on a proof or evidence.

As I asked Abu Loren, can you "choose" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5?  Because that's the kind of "choice" that you think I am making with respect to the existence of God (or at least your kind of God).

You want me to believe that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is loving and merciful, and who desperately wants me to believe in him so that he won't be forced (by whom or what?) to torture me in Hell for eternity.  And yet this being either cannot or will not lift a finger to make himself known to me; nor will he overtly help the billion or so who presently believe in him, and who not only receive no tangible benefit from his "love", but who in many ways suffer more and prosper less than unbelievers.

Perhaps you don't see the many contradictions in this concept; but to me, it is every bit as impossible to believe as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

Second, I don't know how reasonable it is to think that a creator's wisdom has to be aligned with each of his creations, or to think that a creator has to fulfill the whims and fancies of each of his creations to prove his existence. Even in a worldly situation you would find someone with a higher negotiating power always having the upper hand in deciding the terms. So would it be reasonable to think that a creator who is free of all wants and depends in no way whatsoever on his creatures to act in a way according to the wishes of his creations? In a normal situation it would be other way around, the subjects would be just left to find their way to the master.

If God's "love" does not include the desire to save us from Hell, then it isn't worth much.  And He could easily do so, simply by making His existence obvious.  That fact that He doesn't proves beyond any doubt that either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't love us.

All your other stuff about free will and responsibility and "infinite mercy" don't change any of the above.

Ron Webb wrote: Which is like saying that if we can't locate individual molecules in a star a million light years away, therefore we can't accurately locate the star itself. No, this is classic fallacy of composition. Properties of individuals cannot automatically be applied to the group as a whole.

I must say the example doesn't make much sense in this context. If the location of the star is empirically proved, then locating individual molecules becomes totally irrelevant in that context. In what way that could be likened to DNA analysis being claimed to provide an empirical proof for evolution, when it doesn�t?

A property that only exists at individual level can be applied at a group level only with some approximations.

Ron Webb wrote: Insofar as science would ever describe something as "proved", spectral analysis is proved in general, and therefore applies to objects millions of light years away exactly as it applies to any other scenario. No scientist doubts it. Similarly, DNA analysis has been proven in general, and no scientist doubts that it works exactly the same for millions of generations as for one or two.

As I mentioned before, spectral analysis has worked as an empirical method on its full test subject on the earth without any extrapolations and its predictions are matched with observations also.

Can you show us at least one case where DNA analysis has tested the full theory of evolution?

Ron Webb wrote: So what does it mean to speak of "human DNA"? Is that not a property that is independent of individual DNA?

As individual human DNAs are different but with a 99.9% similarity, it has to be an approximation used for theoretical analysis. It definitely is not a property that can be empirically established.

In a lab you only analyse individual DNAs, in theory you have to use some generalizations and approximations for the ease of analysis, wherein I suppose "human DNA" is used as a generic term.

Ron Webb wrote: So in your opinion do the existence of neutrinos, and the nature of the earth's core, remain speculative?

As I mentioned before, it's nothing to do with my opinion. It is to do with whether the theoretical prediction has been empirically proved or not. Looks like there is something for neutrinos and earth�s core and studies are still ongoing in search of the truth, I suppose.

Ron Webb wrote: Is it a matter of choice whether or not to assume the existence of the Celestial Teapot? Surely for reasonable people the "choice" is clear.

That's what it seems, for me the whole Theory of Evolution is nothing more than a Celestial Teapot, just like the concept of an ultimate creator seems to you.

Ron Webb wrote: Pessimistic or not, my point is that we do not have alternatives. What, if not reason, guides your choice of the Quran and Muhammad as the "true religion"? And if it is reason that guides you to religion, then surely your confidence in that religion can be no greater than your confidence in your own reasoning abilities.

I use my reason and at the same time I acknowledge its limitation to be relied upon as the only way of guidance. For me it's hard to believe that this whole universe with all its inhabitants came in to being as a result of mere chance and without any purpose, and to believe that all these processes in the nature happen according to some set laws without the intervention of a supreme power. In Quran I find this supreme power, the explanation for the creation and sustenance, and the purpose of existence. I make my choice at this point and the available signs are more than enough for me to make this choice.

I don't trouble myself further with the so called argument of reason that the creator has to "prove" his existence to me and then only I can believe, that too when it is clear that such a proof cannot be established with whatever resources humans have.

Ron Webb wrote: Do you not think that you are superior to nonbelievers? Because the Quran 3:139 (among many other passages) certainly seems to say so.

It is not the proud words of a believer, it is an offer from Allah that you will be superior if you choose to believe. If you choose not to believe in Allah, you can as well choose to believe that the believers are not superior to you.

Pride and true faith in Allah just can't go hand in hand as it is clear from Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) saying: "That person will not enter Paradise who hath one atom of pride in his heart."

Ron Webb wrote: As I asked Abu Loren, can you "choose" to believe that 2 + 2 = 5? Because that's the kind of "choice" that you think I am making with respect to the existence of God (or at least your kind of God).

You tell me a universally acceptable empirical method that can prove/disprove God the way you disprove 2+2=5 and then it will be easier to see if it is a matter of proof or choice.

Ron Webb wrote: You want me to believe that there is an omniscient and omnipotent being who is loving and merciful, and who desperately wants me to believe in him so that he won't be forced (by whom or what?) to torture me in Hell for eternity. And yet this being either cannot or will not lift a finger to make himself known to me; nor will he overtly help the billion or so who presently believe in him, and who not only receive no tangible benefit from his "love", but who in many ways suffer more and prosper less than unbelievers.Perhaps you don't see the many contradictions in this concept; but to me, it is every bit as impossible to believe as the claim that 2 + 2 = 5.

That's because your judgement is limited to what you see in the life of this world, whereas Allah's wisdom encompasses both the life of this world and the hereafter. And the concept of hereafter becomes a fundamental piece of one's belief in Islam. For a believer, life doesn't end with this world, the true life of eternity only begins after the life of this world. There is a term appointed for each individual and within that term each individual has been given certain free will to choose a life of his own. There will be good as well as bad consequences in this world based on how each individual chooses to use his free will. Allah may show his mercy to the believers during such bad consequences in this world itself, if not, they are assured of that mercy in the hereafter. All the apparent inequalities one see in this world will be set right with true justice on the judgement day and any bad things an individual had to go through in this world pales in comparison to the supreme success in the hereafter that is eternal.

Now do you think your disbelief makes things any better? There have been wars, state sponsored executions, invasions etc. etc. where countless lives are lost, and those responsible for such decisions have later accepted they made an error in judgement in many cases. Can anybody in this world ensure perfect justice to all concerned parties in such a case?

As Allah asks in Quran 67:28:

"Say (O Muhammad): Have ye thought: Whether Allah causeth me (Muhammad) and those with me to perish or hath mercy on us, still, who will protect the disbelievers from a painful doom? (28)"

I don't know where you get this misconception that Allah is desperate to have someone believed, there is no compulsion but a clear warning to the disbelievers and glad tidings to the believers in the form of the Quran, so that individuals can make an informed choice:

Quran 2: 256 "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower. (256)"

Ron Webb wrote: If God's "love" does not include the desire to save us from Hell, then it isn't worth much. And He could easily do so, simply by making His existence obvious. That fact that He doesn't proves beyond any doubt that either He doesn't exist, or He doesn't love us.All your other stuff about free will and responsibility and "infinite mercy" don't change any of the above.

If one willfully chooses to deny Allah in spite of having received a clear warning in the form of Quran among all the other signs available in the universe, then what is the point in blaming Allah for his failure? There were no proofs beyond any doubt for many things that science have found recently, so going by your argument does that mean those things didn't exist before such proofs were established?