DNA Analysis proves evolution

Abu Loren wrote: On the contrary DNA proves that we all originate from one pair because if you could imagine a pyramid structure then Adam and Eve (peace be upon them both) will be at the top and the resulting generations flowing down, adding extra genetical material hence the difference in the DNA.

Did you come up with this or were you taught it?
Either way it demonstrates the massive lack of doubt and critical analysis present in so many Islamic arguments.
The proposition would not survive for ten seconds on any forum focussed on genetic biology.
It only survives in Islamic circles because such rarely look anywhere else, and and almost never apply doubt and scepticism at any sort of healthy level on anything reputedly coming from an Islamic source.

One is caught between wanting to laugh and wanting to cry at such naive trust.

Chris.

QE:

Darwin had got the imagination, what is lacking is the evidence to prove that it is 100% right. Trying to support assumptions and imaginations with more assumptions does not turn them to facts.

Darwinism or the Theory of Evolution (TE) explains:

a) Why we have an appendix
b) Why Bonobos have a Genome that is almost to 98% identical to ours
c) Why women can have more than two nipples
d) How (new) diseases develop
e) How animals/we adapt to environmental changes
g) Why peacocks have beautiful feathers
h) Why our eye is so badly engineered
i) The origin of species
k) Why our metabolism can break down alcohol (just to get it forbidden 10 Mio. years later again)
l) Why leaf wing butterflies (Zaretis itys) exist
m) Why moth wings (can) have long tails
n)......

In science a theory is valid until another theory comes along which can not only explain as much as the former theory could, but even more (so far unexplained) observations, possibly/and/or needing less assumptions.
In a philosophical sense a theory is never absolutely true, in this sense you are correct by saying "what is lacking is the evidence to prove that it is 100% right" (Epigenetics may for example lead to some minor adjustments of TE).
Nevertheless, TE is almost certainly much closer to the truth than the Islamic "explanation(s)".

You say TE is rubbish.
On the basis of what I just wrote you can only (reasonably) say so if you have something better to offer.

Could you try to lay out your (better ?) theory (explaining the above given facts for example) or is it just a lot of froth as usual ?


Airmano

Edited by airmano - 09 March 2015 at 12:01pm

Emettman wrote: Ah well, once a person has said that one need not pay any attention to anything else they have to say. Not quite on 100% evidence, but on the very marked balance of probability. What is lacking is the evidence? Someone hasn't been looking. 100% right? Someone has markedly mistaken the scientific method. Chris.

The whole evolution theory itself is non-provable as it can�t be repeated or observed as it is taking place � then to say that you consider it as true based on very marked balance of probability is actually a faith-based belief.

As I have made clear, I have no problems with one�s beliefs, but there is a problem when you try to present such faith based beliefs as an absolute fact.


Edited by Quranexplorer - 09 March 2015 at 12:42pm

Quranexplorer wrote: 1. Theory of evolution is just a theory ...

Don't you guys ever get tired of saying it's "just a theory", as if that means something?  You already know the response, right? -- The theory of gravity is also "just" a theory.  So what?

...and a rather poor member of the "theory" family because it is neither observed nor does it have any experimental evidence.

DNA analysis is experimental evidence.  Did you read the opening post?

2. Theory of evolution can never be proved.

Scientists are very reluctant to use the word "proved", which is why the theory of gravity is also still "just a theory".  But no serious scientist doubts either theory.

1.     Why ET have no clue on the origin of life? Just left that to pure luck/chance?

Because we have no significant evidence regarding the origin of life.  When we don't know, we say we don't know.  We don't just make stuff up (unlike some people).

2.     Apart from the fact that evolution has never been observed, why there is not even a single complete chain of fossils that show the gradual change of one species to another?

Because the fossil record is necessarily incomplete; and because every time we fill in a gap, you guys just say that creates two more gaps.  But as I said, we don't need the fossil record to prove common ancestry, any more than we need your grandfather's bones to prove that you are related to your cousins.  All we need is DNA evidence.

3.     The intelligent design, especially many of the fine human faculties � all that just happened out of pure chance?

No, of course not.  It happened by natural selection.

Edited by Ron Webb - 09 March 2015 at 1:51pm