Intresting debate:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww - http://youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww

http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-omQxSWi3M&mode=related&search - http://youtube.com/watch?v=2-omQxSWi3M&mode=related& search =

Christian scientist explains why evolution is false.

Are you serious about this?  The world was not created 6000 years ago.  Why are Muslims against evolution?  Could it be possible that Allah created the world and all its creature through the process of evolution?

Aside from the religious view, you must consider that the proofs of evolution are great.  A high school science teacher is hardly qualified to refute what thousands of geneticists and biologists believe to be the unifying theory of how life developed on our planet.  If that man ever spoke at a University, he'd be laughed at.  Unless it was one of those dumb christian universities in the southern united states.

Megatron wrote: Are you serious about this?  The world was not created 6000 years ago.  Why are Muslims against evolution?  Could it be possible that Allah created the world and all its creature through the process of evolution? Aside from the religious view, you must consider that the proofs of evolution are great.  A high school science teacher is hardly qualified to refute what thousands of geneticists and biologists believe to be the unifying theory of how life developed on our planet.  If that man ever spoke at a University, he'd be laughed at.  Unless it was one of those dumb christian universities in the southern united states.

Bismillah and Salaams,

Al-Bari' means?  The Evolver.  Allah, The All-Knowing, created the earth and all that lives on it.  Did he do it through evolution?  The Holy Quran says that Adam was made from clay and Eve, Howa, from his side. 

However, we don't have the timetable to limit us as the Christians who believe in the literal Bible do.  And we know that Allah, the Wise, has created a creation which does evolve.  Scientists, people who observe things over time, have written such changes down.  Indeed, geneticists seek to make modifications to improve our genetic structure, thus evolving us more. 

Where is this denied in the Blessed Quran?  I haven't seen it anywhere.  Science is from Allah, who is the Evolver, and the more we seek to understand, the closer we will be to Allah, The Creator.

herjihad wrote: Megatron wrote: Are you serious about this?  The world was not created 6000 years ago.  Why are Muslims against evolution?  Could it be possible that Allah created the world and all its creature through the process of evolution? Aside from the religious view, you must consider that the proofs of evolution are great.  A high school science teacher is hardly qualified to refute what thousands of geneticists and biologists believe to be the unifying theory of how life developed on our planet.  If that man ever spoke at a University, he'd be laughed at.  Unless it was one of those dumb christian universities in the southern united states. Bismillah and Salaams, Al-Bari' means?  The Evolver.  Allah, The All-Knowing, created the earth and all that lives on it.  Did he do it through evolution?  The Holy Quran says that Adam was made from clay and Eve, Howa, from his side.  However, we don't have the timetable to limit us as the Christians who believe in the literal Bible do.  And we know that Allah, the Wise, has created a creation which does evolve.  Scientists, people who observe things over time, have written such changes down.  Indeed, geneticists seek to make modifications to improve our genetic structure, thus evolving us more.  Where is this denied in the Blessed Quran?  I haven't seen it anywhere.  Science is from Allah, who is the Evolver, and the more we seek to understand, the closer we will be to Allah, The Creator.

So you mean we are more evolved than Adam (peace be upon him) and Ibrahim (pbuh) and Mohammad (pbuh) ??? Because they lived a long time ago and so if Evolution is true it would mean that the corrupt societies of today are more "evolved" than the religious people and Prophets of the past.

The Truth however is that Evolution has NOT been scientifically proven and if you watch the 3 videos I've posted above you will understand.

I also recommend you to read EVOLUTION DECIET by Harun Yahya which not only disproves the THEORY of evolution it also explains WHY most "scientists" and Governments and media are trying to spread this theory (they are Freemasons and Darwin himself was the Grandson of a Freemason and Freemasons want to revive Pre-Christian Paganism).

The only truth in the theory is that Apes are linked to Human beings but they did Not evolve into Human beings, but some humans DEVOLVED into Apes and swine.

Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? Those whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served Satan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.  (Qur'an Surah 5 verse 60 )

 Evolution is correct except that there is no natural selection. It is all by the will of Allah that He has created. So evolution is here by creation or vice versa.

 We don't believe that Adam was the first man here on earth. He was however the first prophet of Allah. The christians believe that mankind is here only since 6000 years. Islam does not support it.

I didn't realize that so many of you really don't know what evolution is, and let alone, can differentiate between evolution and the process of natural selection. Creationism is a poor excuse of a philosophy and should not be taught in class. God creating the world is a spiritual belief that should be private and in the private homes of people. You cannot physically measure God nor can you prove that God created the planet. However with genetics you can prove that certain creature groups have some genetic link to each other, for instance chimps and humans share 95% of their DNA.

Som religionist just don't like the fact that all of life was once one. I remember discussing with a fellow Muslim the other day about evolution and he didn't like the fact that maybe our closes relative was a chimp. For some reason he considered animals to be less than human. Little does he know that intelligence is not measured on one scale but on several scales but I took his contempt as more of a human pride thing than anything. But yes, to say the world is 6000 years old is simply a delusion made up by Christians (oh wait, its in the Bible). It's funny when Paleontologist study carbon dated bonoes of prehistoric creatures and find that they are millions of years old how can a christian who believes in Creationism answer that? Oh, with, "the devil put those bones there?" LOL

I love my Creator and I take it serious when our Creator is thrown into a theological/scientific circus by idiots who (and I'll quote brother Rami in this) are not equipped with the knowledge of the field. I'll agree with Rami in that biological scientist and genetic researchers have no right commenting on God. This is like the blasphemy of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove anything that is incoporeal or cannot be physically studied. The same thing with theologians. Theologians or religionist alike cannot comment on evolution if they are coming from a doctrinal perspective.

Israfil wrote: I didn't realize that so many of you really don't know what evolution is, and let alone, can differentiate between evolution and the process of natural selection. Creationism is a poor excuse of a philosophy and should not be taught in class. God creating the world is a spiritual belief that should be private and in the private homes of people. You cannot physically measure God nor can you prove that God created the planet. However with genetics you can prove that certain creature groups have some genetic link to each other, for instance chimps and humans share 95% of their DNA. Som religionist just don't like the fact that all of life was once one. I remember discussing with a fellow Muslim the other day about evolution and he didn't like the fact that maybe our closes relative was a chimp. For some reason he considered animals to be less than human. Little does he know that intelligence is not measured on one scale but on several scales but I took his contempt as more of a human pride thing than anything. But yes, to say the world is 6000 years old is simply a delusion made up by Christians (oh wait, its in the Bible). It's funny when Paleontologist study carbon dated bonoes of prehistoric creatures and find that they are millions of years old how can a christian who believes in Creationism answer that? Oh, with, "the devil put those bones there?" LOL I love my Creator and I take it serious when our Creator is thrown into a theological/scientific circus by idiots who (and I'll quote brother Rami in this) are not equipped with the knowledge of the field. I'll agree with Rami in that biological scientist and genetic researchers have no right commenting on God. This is like the blasphemy of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove anything that is incoporeal or cannot be physically studied. The same thing with theologians. Theologians or religionist alike cannot comment on evolution if they are coming from a doctrinal perspective.

Wow! So whose the idiot here?!

Anyway, even though I dont believe in evolution, I dont consider it a serious danger to my beliefs, I simply dont believe it because it has not been proven (that's why even most scientists who believe it call it a THEORY). If the existance of a creator should not be taught because it is "not proven", then surely evolution should not be taught either as it is only a theory.

But really when you have to choose from teaching: "we all came from empty space and an explosion that came out of nowhere for no reason" and Creation, then any sane person must admit that creation makes much more sense. By creation I dont mean that "God was playing with clay and made man", what I mean is that if there was an explosion in empty space which brought about all planets, all plants, all the insects and animals and sciences and arts and emotions and senses etc.etc.etc. then you better believe that there was intelligent design, or else, you simply lack intelligence...or sanity.

Evolution or not, it's clear that there must have been a creator, or else how could the "mutations" have had so many positive rather than negative effect (even though mutations are naturally a bad thing, yet the more evolved or "mutated", the more advanced we are as according to evolution humans have evolved more than all other beings and we are certainly more advanced than all animals and plants-why have there not been any negative mutations).

I dont know wether or not the Bible is correct to say the earth was created 6 or 7 thousand years ago, there are arguements on both sides (watch the first video I posted). But no matter how old the earth is, after reading Evolution Deciet by Harun Yahya and listening to anti-evolution scientists, I see no reason why I should believe in evolution.

The belief in evolution today is similair to the belief that the earth is flat and ends at its edges which existed in Europe a few centuries ago. It was a popular belief, but it was no more than a theory which was late proven wrong.

Little do you know that science, even theoretical science is our best guess at proof than religion. Religion cannot prove how the bottle becomes aflot in the water only scientific observation this is why secular science becomes more of a plausible approach to practical truth than religion. A theologian cannot prove how the bottle stays aflot in the water except by stating God willed the bottle to stay afloat. One can be physically measured and one cannot. Just basically observable elements for the position of evolutionist are: fossils, bones, teeth, and other structures not to mention genetic link. So what do you teach children in schools? Observable facts or facts based on faith?

Allah is the Lord of the universe definitely but in the Qur'an Allah asks us to observe nature to find proof of his existence. The difference between this and Creationism is that Creationism, ultimately, stems from doctrinal teachings not empirical study.

Bi ismillahir rahmanir raheem

assalamu alaikum

Israfil

Do you agree Evolution is a scientific process?

Do you agree Science can only prove what it can observe?

Do you agree that for an animal to change from one form to another its DNA must change?

Can you show me where scientists have explicitly observed this process of DNA changing or rather new genetic information being added to DNA in order for the creature to grow in a specified manner according to its DNA like the laws of genetics state all creatures do, and not simply arrived at the phenomenon of evolution by conclusion.

Creationism is a poor excuse of a philosophy and should not be taught in class.

This is akin to saying philosophy should not be taught, rather you mean philosophy should not be taught as a science.

God creating the world is a spiritual belief that should be private and in the private homes of people.

La illaha illa llah is not a private belief and should be spread.

You cannot physically measure God nor can you prove that God created the planet. However with genetics you can prove that certain creature groups have some genetic link to each other, for instance chimps and humans share 95% of their DNA.

This is a conclusion based on probability not scientific or observable facts that the two came from each other.

Som religionist just don't like the fact that all of life was once one.

a conclusion not an observable or provable fact.

I remember discussing with a fellow Muslim the other day about evolution and he didn't like the fact that maybe our closes relative was a chimp.

Science states our DNA is similar it can not ever prove by observation why, Islam offers the explanation that Allah turned some humans into apes, When Allah says to a thing Be it is so what observable science is there before he gives his command none. So the why of it is thus not in the hands of scientists it is simply an explanation they offer along with there scientific observations.

You may like to read the following,

Islam and Evolution

http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm - http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/evolve.htm  

But yes, to say the world is 6000 years old is simply a delusion made up by Christians (oh wait, its in the Bible). It's funny when Paleontologist study carbon dated bonoes of prehistoric creatures and find that they are millions of years old how can a christian who believes in Creationism answer that? Oh, with, "the devil put those bones there?" LOL

World changing events which alter the rate of carbon decay?

not that I'm saying the world is 6000 years old.

This is like the blasphemy of science. Science can neither prove nor disprove anything that is incoporeal or cannot be physically studied.

They continually disregard what they can not see with there eyes, this is the state of kufr and what all people in the past asked there prophets "show us a miracle so we can believe".

The same thing with theologians. Theologians or religionist alike cannot comment on evolution if they are coming from a doctrinal perspective.

Many Islamic theologians where qualified scientist at the same time but by todays standards people only specialize in one field.

It wasnt that long ago that architects where also civil engineers only recently have the two disciplines been separate.

Religion cannot prove how the bottle becomes aflot in the water only scientific observation this is why secular science becomes more of a plausible approach to practical truth than religion.

Who said it is the place of religion to clarify why bottles float, Islams so called golden age was primarily in scientific endeavor a golden age stemmed from religious practice, the two are not in competition with each other. the place of science is for practical purposes only a lowly place in the grander scheme of things, its value to humans today only comes due to the increasing materialism of societies. 

A theologian cannot prove how the bottle stays aflot in the water except by stating God willed the bottle to stay afloat.

what fool would ask a physicist about chemistry and expect a correct answer?

So what do you teach children in schools? Observable facts or facts based on faith?

Observable facts without the fairytale conclusions that come along with them.

Allah is the Lord of the universe definitely but in the Qur'an Allah asks us to observe nature to find proof of his existence.

he is asking us to use all our faculties not simply one or two i.e see and touch, use all of them to come up with a holistic picture not a half truth.

The Dawkins Delusion

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis - http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

Very funny video, a must see for anyone who knows about Charles Dawkins.

Rami,

Allow me to give you the respect you deserve by offering you a detailed answer and, if you are willing, bare with me because I did a 12 hour shift and am quite tired.

Rami your comments are in Red

assalamu alaikum

Israfil

Do you agree Evolution is a scientific process?

Bismi'llah ir-Rahmaan ir-Raheem

Wa'Alaikum Salaam

First, this question is slightly misleading. Let us be clear and not confuse between what is scientific and what is natural. Evolution is a natural process  which scientific observation defines through empirical study.

Do you agree Science can only prove what it can observe?

Again, this question may be misleading as you state science can "only" prove observable things. Although I'm inclined to agree that science can prove observable facts I would have to add that science can, in addition to proof ,can come up with logical and theoretical propositions that are true.

Do you agree that for an animal to change from one form to another its DNA must change?

Agreed.

Can you show me where scientists have explicitly observed this process of DNA changing or rather new genetic information being added to DNA in order for the creature to grow in a specified manner according to its DNA like the laws of genetics state all creatures do, and not simply arrived at the phenomenon of evolution by conclusion.

You have to understand that evolutionary thought has existed for centuries starting with the Greek Philosophers (and Roman thinkers) to Arab biologist such as Al-Jahiz. What gave evolution its strong support was the prediction of genetic mutation (See: Gregor Mendel) which lead to further studies (and further splits in Mendelian and Darwinist evolutionary thought) to the eventual reconciliation of evolution and natural selection which in themselves lead to the construct of modern evolutionary synthesis.

Evolution has been observable through artificial selection, the intentional selection of traits in a population of organisms. I mean, we can see evolution ourselves by simply breeding a Rotweiler and Great Dane. This process has been done by humans for centuries as well.  As far as physical observation of evolution the following pictures are a few examples provided by Wikipedia of evolution:

Geographical isolation of finches on the Gal�pagos Islands produced over a dozen new species.

Simulation of genetic drift of 20 unlinked alleles in populations of 10 (top) and 100 (bottom). Drift is more rapid in the smaller population.

Genetic drift is the change in allele frequency from one generation to the next that occurs because alleles in the offspring generation are a random sample of those in the parent generation, and are thus subject to sampling error.[14] As a result, when selective forces are absent or relatively weak, allele frequencies tend to "drift" upward or downward in a random walk. This drift halts when an allele eventually becomes fixed, either by disappearing from the population, or replacing the other alleles entirely. Genetic drift may therefore eliminate some alleles from a population due to chance alone, and two separate populations that began with the same genetic structure can drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different sets of alleles.[52] The time for an allele to become fixed by genetic drift depends on population size, with fixation occurring more rapidly in smaller populations.[53]

Although natural selection is responsible for adaptation, the relative importance of the two forces of natural selection and genetic drift in driving evolutionary change in general is an area of current research in evolutionary biology.[54] These investigations were prompted by the neutral theory of molecular evolution, which proposed that most evolutionary changes are the result the fixation of neutral mutations that do not have any immediate effects on the fitness of an organism.[55] Hence, in this model, most genetic changes in a population are the result of constant mutation pressure and genetic drift.[56]  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Proving Evolution:

Billions of years ago there was a dessert fork which through mutation slowly evolved into a relish fork, then a salad fork, and then a dinner fork... and finally a carving fork.

A lot of skeptics (religious fundementalists) say there is no proof that these evolved from one another and that they were most likely created/invented by people, but evolutionists believe the similarity between these forks proves that they evolved from one another, and to say that "Humans" invented them is "unscientific". Some have gone as far as saying  that humans dont even exist since there is no proof that humans invented the forks

Funny Piece Sawtul,

I really don't think you guys really understand evolution. I just explained to you the best way I can.

Bi ismillahi rahmani raheem

i will insha allah post my reply to the scientific aspects of the theory at a later time.

Again, this question may be misleading as you state science can "only" prove observable things. Although I'm inclined to agree that science can prove observable facts I would have to add that science can, in addition to proof ,can come up with logical and theoretical propositions that are true.

Theoretical propositions are not the realm of facts unless thoroughly proven by actual observation they are up for interpretation and reinterpretation, we are not dealing with the facts of the moment or even century but absolute facts.

The evolutionist argument against God is solely based on the point that God is not Physically Observable, it is only reasonable we apply the same standards to them otherwise they would be even more deserving of ridicule for lack of scholarly standards.

You have to understand that evolutionary thought has existed for centuries starting with the Greek Philosophers (and Roman thinkers) to Arab biologist such as Al-Jahiz.

Amr bin Bahr al-Fukaymi al-Basri was a Mutazilli, a heretical sect in Islam who's Aqeedah was on shaky ground. There are a number of concepts in evolution which are outright kufr Natural selection being the main one, it would not surprise me if it was in the end simply a Mutazili invention [or confusion as this group was known for attributing things to other than God but not to the extent of kufr] because clearly all observations they could have made at the time were by naked eye or very basic microscopes if they even where around at the time. So now we have to question the basis for there theory and why it was picked up blindly later on.

From wiki http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/History_of_evolution -

800s Ad: The medieval Muslim scientist and philosopher Al-Jahiz first describes the struggle for existence which was similar to natural selection.

1000s Ad: The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haitham elaborates Al-Jahiz's theories and writes a book that explicitly argued for biological evolution (although not by natural selection).

1770: Baron d'Holbach one of the first atheists in the Western world publishes The System of Nature which contains early evolutionary concepts such as the idea that humans evolved over the course of time and that every living thing changes in response to its environment.

1838: Charles Darwin formulates the theory of natural selection.

Rami its obvious that although I have shown the position of evolution logical basis in science you will not at least in part understand what I'm saying. So with this in mind I'll simply explain why Creationism shouldn't be taught in school.

Proposition #1

Creationism is not universal

First off, Creationism pressuposes that the Earth was created by God. Although majority of human beings on earth has some sort of spiritual foundation, this belief is not equally applicable to all humans. In addition, spirituality much like aesthetics, must be obtained through  an experience that is unique to the individual. This quality is not always experienced by everyone.

Creationism cannot be proven

The strength of Creationism comes from its foundation which is mainly doctrinal. Even if, somehow Creationism can prove that an intelligent artisan designed the world how can they prove it is not some super intelligent extra- terrestrial and not God? So in addition to proving God even designed the Earth another obstacle would be to prove if God is not some super intelligent alien with the capabilities of creating planets and intelligent organisms within them.

Creationism comes from Christianity

Creationism origins comes from Christian thought not Islamic so even if Muslims agree I don't see why they support it since Creationism (as far as general consensus is concerned) is Christian thought. Of course, the more universal approach here would be to change the language and say designer but even then this designer would succumb to the scrutiny of what kind of designer this is. Is this designer the one who has given the book to prophets or simply a Demiurge? Even if this designer is the former it is obvious that there would be some disagreement here. If the designer is the latter then there is obvious disagreement because his designer is not simply an entity with infinite quality but finite qualities as well.

Creationism is a spiritual belief which is personal

The belief in God is personal because the ultimate goal for religioonist is to obtain a close relationship with God. Although an open relationship is encouraged, it is generally thought that people (at least in Islamic ideology) shouldn't be compelled to know religion. Teaching Creationism in class is a direct slap in the face to those who are agnostic, atheist or of another religious faith. If we must offer Creationism this respect we must offer other religious interpretations to science as well.

Taking natural selection out of the picture for one second I dont see how evolution is not believed in. All organisms evolve. Our ancestors evolved from the African climate to other climates to different parts of Europe and Asia. This is why human beings in different parts of the world have different skin tone. This is evolution.

Why Evolution is supported

My reasons

1) All humans have shared genes, however, all of our genes are hereditary from our parents, eye color, hair color, skin tone etc. Our genetic makeup is the result of earlier adaptation in various environments. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

2) Phenotype is the result of the interaction of the genotype in their environment. Genetic variation happens through the fluctuation of one particular allele which may or may not become prevalent in other forms of that gene. What does this mean? Evolution forces these alleles to shift in one direction or another. This partial explanation shows the driving force of Evolution on a cellular level. Of course there are several processes that could be explained however I wanted to note what I found very important as one of the driving forces of cellular evolution. 

3) Natural selection is a necessary component to the survival of certain organisms. A simple example would be the environmental changes. Most individuals with dark skin complexion are more suitable for hot environments versus those whose skin has a lighter pigmentation. Individuals with lighter skin complexion living in hot climates normally do not last long and eventually would develop skin cancer and die off. Every individual may not succumb to such a fate but a lot would and those that survived may produce offspring some tens of thousands of years later with slightly darker skin complexion.

Central Argument why Creationism doesn't fit

What's interesting here is Creationism is not necessarily criticized for its central belief in God, but because of its story of Noah's Ark. The Ark has an estimated size of a football field in which God has given Noah for him and his family and 2 of every animal on earth. Now mind you, scientist have discovered 12,000 new species! this does not mention species which existed 5,000 years ago. Now given the Ark's size how is it possible to fit 2 of perhaps over 12,0000 species in one boat the size of a football field? God who is the author of all things does not make any errors but perhaps the story in accordance to Biblical standards may be slightly off?

Even if we were suppose that all these species were able to fit on the boat what about after the flood?

Assalam Aleikum Br.

I have been wanting to add my comments for some time but the month and mounting responsibilities have placed a damper on my time and energy to participate in such "deep" topics. It is at this piont that we vehemently disagree. First, let us put forth in a basic and cursory manner, an underlying principle of evolution. That life began as nothing more than organic molecules floating around in some goo that came together in just a right way that gave rise to some kind of basic "replicator" (a term often used by Richard Dawkins) which could replicate copy of itself, and through succesive mutation in response to the environment, we get single cell life, and this also evolves through successive mutations and beomce more complex, on and on and on, until we have mammals, and reptiles, and insects, etc, etc, etc.

The idea that a lifeform can, as a speciies, adapt and survive the onset of environmental changes is a point brought up by evolutionists, and their supporters. The problem is that a species adapting to change does not imply, at all, on any level, that

1) life started in some goo of organic compounds

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance) 

In other words, because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.

There is not a single schred of evidence that strongly supports one and two. They have tampered and tweeked the definition of "speciation" so that one could include fruit flies that have hari growth that another group of fruit flies does not have as two different species. Smoking mirrors!

Israfil wrote: Why Evolution is supported My reasons 1) All humans have shared genes, however, all of our genes are hereditary from our parents, eye color, hair color, skin tone etc. Our genetic makeup is the result of earlier adaptation in various environments. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.

There is no evidence to show that random mutations have created us as a distinct species. That is speculation. Your claim does try and fit into the extremely loose use of the concept of "mutation giving rise to speciation".

The evolutionist must prove that mutations started life, and that life grew into some other species.

2) Phenotype is the result of the interaction of the genotype in their environment. Genetic variation happens through the fluctuation of one particular allele which may or may not become prevalent in other forms of that gene. What does this mean? Evolution forces these alleles to shift in one direction or another. This partial explanation shows the driving force of Evolution on a cellular level. Of course there are several processes that could be explained however I wanted to note what I found very important as one of the driving forces of cellular evolution.

evolution fails to explain the very basics of "cellular" evolution because it fails to show just how complicated systems came into being. As an example, the blood clotting system. The blood clotting system must have two essential components: clotting at the right time and place. If not, the system will die. It is that simple. The blood clotting system is extremely complicated, and it is also in the most simplistic form (you cannot take away or add to it). To use the idea of cellular evolution would only show the extreme weakness of the theary and the reason why evolution is a "dead end". If you say that the blood clotting system came into being through random mutations, then you must show how the system worked with only a one or two or a few basic elements. Of course this would be impossible given that nothing can be taken away or added without destroying the system thus kiling the organism. The system is "irreducible". The chances that the system "just" came into being from some huge ramdom dice role is impossible.

3) Natural selection is a necessary component to the survival of certain organisms. A simple example would be the environmental changes. Most individuals with dark skin complexion are more suitable for hot environments versus those whose skin has a lighter pigmentation. Individuals with lighter skin complexion living in hot climates normally do not last long and eventually would develop skin cancer and die off. Every individual may not succumb to such a fate but a lot would and those that survived may produce offspring some tens of thousands of years later with slightly darker skin complexion.

Once more, none of this supports that founding ideas of evolution. I have personally heard supporters and scientists state that macro changes (adaptation) automatically gives "micro" (different species forming, life from nothing, etc). This is a fallacy.

This is all I have time for Br.

I hope you are having a blessed month.

To give you the respect you deserve I'll respond to you when I'm not done.

1) life started in some goo of organic compounds

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance) 

In other words, because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.

There is not a single schred of evidence that strongly supports one and two. They have tampered and tweeked the definition of "speciation" so that one could include fruit flies that have hari growth that another group of fruit flies does not have as two different species. Smoking mirrors!

Analdus,

I'm confused at your question because you are saying two things here. From what I'm reading are you asking how does evolution prov e that all life started out as an "organic soup?" And also how does speciation occur from this?????

There is no evidence to show that random mutations have created us as a distinct species. That is speculation. Your claim does try and fit into the extremely loose use of the concept of "mutation giving rise to speciation".

The evolutionist must prove that mutations started life, and that life grew into some other species.

In the above bold you are asking how evolution proves life began (a third question) which is the wrong one to ask. If you want answers to the actual scientific theory on explain how Earth had the compounds to produce life you would have to seek out astronomist. Just briefly off topic some scientist introduce the theory that in the prehistoric times the Earth (prior to the existence of dinosaurs) was bombarded by meteors and comets and these introduce the life giving compositions in earth. Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon dioxide (including other gases) including bacteria were all compositions in the order of creation of life. Evolution does not explain how life develops but how organisms evolve and adapt. Two different theories here.

Israfil wrote: 1) life started in some goo of organic compounds 2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance)  In other words, because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.   There is not a single schred of evidence that strongly supports one and two. They have tampered and tweeked the definition of "speciation" so that one could include fruit flies that have hari growth that another group of fruit flies does not have as two different species. Smoking mirrors! Analdus, I'm confused at your question because you are saying two things here.

LOL...yes of course I am saying two things, I even numbered them as two things, one and two. Two points that evolution fails to prove or even predict (a "real" scientific thoery should make predictions, evolution has not been able to predict anythimg, and being a "tautology", it always agrees with everything after the fact!).

My question was actually a proposition: evolution fails on two major points, and the proponents like to hide behind the banner of "adaption" to promote the theory, but the novice usually fails to see the smoking mirrors and see that adaptation does not prove the bases of evolution: life came from nothing, and mutations cause speciation.

From what I'm reading are you asking how does evolution prov e that all life started out as an "organic soup?" And also how does speciation occur from this?????

I stated that rather clearly? I am going a bit further to emphasize that evolution fails to prove either.

There is no evidence to show that random mutations have created us as a distinct species. That is speculation. Your claim does try and fit into the extremely loose use of the concept of "mutation giving rise to speciation". The evolutionist must prove that mutations started life, and that life grew into some other species. In the above bold you are asking how evolution proves life began (a third question) which is the wrong one to ask.

Actually it is a very salient direction that I used. Evolutionist claim that they have not just a theory, but a proven factual theory that explains how life began and developed. This is the bottom line. If a theory makes a claim, then it needs to prove it. The theory of evolution is the only theory in the realm of science that is given a free ride.

And that was not a third question, but a reiteration of the two points of centention that I proclaimed in the beginning.

If you want answers to the actual scientific theory on explain how Earth had the compounds to produce life you would have to seek out astronomist.

No, astronomy did not engender the threory of evolution. That is the realm of biology, and so I put forth my demand for proof from those who made the claim.

Just briefly off topic some scientist introduce the theory that in the prehistoric times the Earth (prior to the existence of dinosaurs) was bombarded by meteors and comets and these introduce the life giving compositions in earth. Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon dioxide (including other gases) including bacteria were all compositions in the order of creation of life.

speculation. which takes "faith" to believe in.

And if true, still does not prove that mutations give rise to speciation.

Evolution does not explain how life develops but how organisms evolve and adapt. Two different theories here.

Poppycock! Evolution proclaims that the changes which are seen as adaptations prove that mutations cause speciation, which also, supposedly proves that a cell formed in a goo which gave us birds and man and apes and fish.

I agree that evolution cannot tell us how life began, but evolutionists do claim that life started from a series of mutations, which came, somehow, from nothing.

evolution fails to explain the very basics of "cellular" evolution because it fails to show just how complicated systems came into being. As an example, the blood clotting system. The blood clotting system must have two essential components: clotting at the right time and place. If not, the system will die. It is that simple. The blood clotting system is extremely complicated, and it is also in the most simplistic form (you cannot take away or add to it). To use the idea of cellular evolution would only show the extreme weakness of the theary and the reason why evolution is a "dead end". If you say that the blood clotting system came into being through random mutations, then you must show how the system worked with only a one or two or a few basic elements. Of course this would be impossible given that nothing can be taken away or added without destroying the system thus kiling the organism. The system is "irreducible". The chances that the system "just" came into being from some huge ramdom dice role is impossible. Brother Andalus your asking questions that seem to show you have no real knowledge on evolution.

I beg to differ. I just presented you with a huge delima for evolution. In the past, evolutionists had an easy ride with just showing how certain things resemble one another, and it was easy to make connections (based upon supposition). But late in the 20th century, molecular biology grew as did biochemistry, and behold, evolution begins to fail. Mutations occur at the molecular level, according to evolutionists, because change must take place at the molecular level. Irriducible complex systems exist in biological systems, and these systems cannot have evolved, and the chances that they just appeared are impossible. Perhaps brother, you are not up on the details that accompany the idea of evolution.

 

After reading Charles Darwin's book in college (including updated material) I don't think Darwin's theory was to show the complexity of cellular division rather, to show how organisms evolved in certain conditions and to show how this occured.

Thats because science did not know anything about the realm of molecular biology. Watson and Crick were far from gracing the earth. Ignorance on the part of Darwin does not invalidate my point. Adaptations simply are no big deal, and do not prove that life came from a single cell. I am aware of what Darwin proposed, but Darwin's theories fail to predict or explain phenomena that is continuously being discovered. His deciples just revent his wheel, and continue to update it, and proudly boust how his theories have held up.

Later retuned explainations showed how "genetic drift" plays a role in this development. I'm surprised you didn't read that part. The complexity of the blood clotting system has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with the physiological structure.

Are you kidding? Nothing to do with evolution?????? Brother.....are you so entangled in this horrible theory that you are being loyal or are you truly not connecting the dots?

The ideas on genetic drift is another realm that is useless as long as nothing in the thoery is able to show how the systems of the organsim evolved.An organism cannot have evolved if it has an irreducible complex system. It is on the theory to provide answers.

Do you understand what takes place in the clotting system? I would be happy to go into details.

The basis of natural selection was that species that were able to adapt into a certain environment thrived versus those that didn't. The species that survived passed on their genes which produced offspring wiht the same genetic composition as the the previous.

I am aware of what adaption is, and I am aware that it does not prove speciation or that life started from nothing (a metaphysical idea at the bases of evolution), and I am also aware that natural selection cannot show how irreducible complex systems emerged.

A good example are the Gallapgos (I might have mutilated that name) Island birds. Darwin spent some years looking at these birds. On the Island when it rains the seeds that the birds eat in the trees shrink therefore large beak birds are unable to pick the seeds up, but smaller beak birds are able to therefore, the large beak birds eventually starve and die while the smaller beak birds survive. During a dry spell it is the opposite. Because the seeds become too large the large beak birds thrive and small beak birds die off.

I am aware of this story. My reply: So what? What do the Dallas Cowboys have to do with the price of bannanas in Nicaragua. My point being, that a bird with a different size beaks does not prove speciation.....something jumped from a reptile to a mammal.....a cell mutating into a larger creature....a beast mutating into a human..etc, etc. I do not disagree that some adaptation takes place, I do find it to be a fallacy to try and stretch this as a proof for the entirety of evolution.

Once more, none of this supports that founding ideas of evolution. I have personally heard supporters and scientists state that macro changes (adaptation) automatically gives "micro" (different species forming, life from nothing, etc). This is a fallacy. Now I feel like I'm going back to highschool with this but all life comes from a single celled organism, this has been proven.

Actually, you might check out what a proof is and is not. And assertion with weak speculation and adaptation examples doe not prove that a cell started all life. And while you are finding your proof, also explain how the irreducible system of blood clotting was able to evolve.

Since this transformation (e.g. from water animals to land animals) all humans have one ancestor that descended from the central southern regions of Africa. From this came the migration eastward in to the Eurasian continents. From thousands upon thousands of years (maybe hundreds of thousands) came the development of different adaptations. Humans began to change. It is obvious from the different types of ethnic groups and skin pigmentations you would think this is the case. I mean Andalus come on. All humans share the same genetic stuff so how would you would theorize how we are so externally different?

You are simply preaching Brother! I know what the claim is, the problem is that there is no proof for this claim. Of course humans share common "stuff", we are all human!

Come on brother!!!!! lol

ditto! 

Andalus your post are in bold

LOL...yes of course I am saying two things, I even numbered them as two things, one and two. Two points that evolution fails to prove or even predict (a "real" scientific thoery should make predictions, evolution has not been able to predict anythimg, and being a "tautology", it always agrees with everything after the fact!).

My question was actually a proposition: evolution fails on two major points, and the proponents like to hide behind the banner of "adaption" to promote the theory, but the novice usually fails to see the smoking mirrors and see that adaptation does not prove the bases of evolution: life came from nothing, and mutations cause speciation.

Thanks for addressing me in that manner now I must become hostile with you. Recently I've been developing my dissertation for my PH.D. (along with work) and have not had time to actual put forthought into this discussion (which is the last thing on my priority list) so bear with me. I have to ask you Analdus to what extent of knowledge do you have of evolution? I mean, your response was atypical of someone who is knowledgable of evolution especially more indepth in the molecular level so I have to ask how much do you reall know?

To ask the questions:

1) life started in some goo of organic compounds

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance)

Didn't make sense because the following analogy:

  because an elephant, isolated on a island over time becomes small, does not imply, that 1 or 2 are true, which is at the heart of evolution.

Either was not properly written or was not well thought out. Instead of making this long drawn out post let us cover the two main themes of your statement.

1)life started in some goo of organic compounds

Just so I'm not "preaching to you" allow me to elaborate what you are saying here. Obviously, you are referring to the Primordial Soup theory. For those of you who may be reading don't know basically what this theory states is life began in a pond or ocean as a result of the combination of chemicals from the atmosphere and some form of energy to make amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, which would then evolve into all the species.

How evolution played a role in the Primordial Soup Theory

-Andalus are you familiar with the Russian Chemist, A.I. Oparin and Haldane? (This is just for kicks and giggles)

-Basically what follows here is that the basic building blocks of life came from simple molecule which formed in the atmosphere without the existence of oxygen. This was then actualized by lightning and the rain from the atmosphere created the "organic soup". The first organisms would have to be simple heterotrophs in order to survive by consuming other organisms for energy before means of photosynthesis. They would become autotrophs by mutation (an element in evolution).

Obvious problems covered in this theory

1) Amino acids have to become protein

2) Hitting the right protein is very difficult

3) Amino acids are building blocks not the assembled structures

4) The early atmosphere contained early gases methane and ammonia which were gases that encompassed earth well before oxygen.

5) Cannot spontnaeously generate protein

So although this theory (also revised later by Muller?) it is just a theory and there is not enough physical evidence to support it. Evolutionist are fanatical about this theory because of the existence of mutated organic substances. Now in the realm of science what is more likely to be measured? God created the world out of a void or, organic compounds that can be studied to its earliest form? Although this theory is still a theory it still provides the groundwork for later discoveries.

Again, Creationist do no better by simply saying a "designer created the world out of a void" why? Because faith cannot be measured. God is incorporeal and cannot be measured so in the case of Ockam's Razor what is more plausible here?

2) that speciation occured (something becoming a reptile and a mammal for instance) 

In reference to this question like the previous one I just answered I turn to the concept of "biological evolution" which is something I should have indicated in my previous post to discern the different types of evolution. When it comes to Speciation my frient to understand this you must also confront the four types of speciation: allopatric, peripatric, parapatric and sympatric. Do you deny that all of these are false? To assume you have a novice's understanding of speciation and these four processes I will not go into detail to not sound like I'm "preaching to the choir."

However it is important to note that in these four processes comes the result of the differnetiation of species. The following is an explanation on the various types of Reproductive Isolation:

Types of Reproductive Isolation

There are many barriers to reproduction. Each species may have its own courtship displays, or breeding season, so that members of the two species do not have the opportunity to interbreed. Or, the two species may be unable to interbreed successfully because of failure of the egg to become fertilized or to develop.

This suggests a simple and useful dichotomy, between pre-mating or prezygotic (i.e., pre-zygote formation) reproductive isolating mechanisms, and post-mating or postzygotic isolating mechanisms. Remember that a zygote is the cell formed by the union of two gametes and is the basis of a developing individual.

Prezygotic isolating mechanisms

1. Ecological isolation: Species occupy different habitats. The lion and tiger overlapped in India until 150 years ago, but the lion lived in open grassland and the tiger in forest. Consequently, the two species did not hybridize in nature (although they sometimes do in zoos).
2. Temporal isolation: Species breed at different times. In North America, five frog species of the genus Rana differ in the time of their peak breeding activity.
3. Behavioral isolation: Species engage in distinct courtship and mating rituals.
4. Mechanical isolation: Interbreeding is prevented by structural or molecular blockage of the formation of the zygote. Mechanisms include the inability of the sperm to bind to the egg in animals, or the female reproductive organ of a plant preventing the wrong pollinator from landing.

Postzygotic isolating mechanisms Hybrid inviability. Development of the zygote proceeds abnormally and the hybrid is aborted. (For instance, the hybrid egg formed from the mating of a sheep and a goat will die early in development.)  Hybrid sterility. The hybrid is healthy but sterile. (The mule, the hybrid offspring of a donkey and a mare, is sterile; it is unable to produce viable gametes because the chromosomes inherited from its parents do not pair and cross over correctly during meiosis (cell division in which two sets of chromosomes of the parent cell are reduced to a single set in the products, termed gametes - see Figure).  Hybrid is healthy and fertile, but less fit, or infertility appears in later generations (as witnessed in laboratory crosses of fruit flies, where the offspring of second-generation hybrids are weak and usually cannot produce viable offspring).  ** Post-zygotic mechanisms are those in which hybrid zygotes fail, develop abnormally, or cannot self-reproduce and establish viable populations in nature. ** So species remain distinct due to reproductive isolation. But how do species form in the first place? An abbreviated illustration of meiosis, by which reproductive cells duplicate to form gametes.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/speciation/speciation.html - http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lect ures/speciation/speciation.html

 

Ever heard of Cladogenesis brother Analdus?

You know the one species develops into two or more through adaptation. Also plays a role in the evolution of organic species. Remember the Galapagos Island analogy that you found so irrelevant? Actually that was quite relevant to explain the validity behind evolution. Evolutionist may note in regards to specicies, an isolated population branches off from its ancestral species when it has accumulated a number of significant, independent variations that differentiate it from the original species.

What's so interesting about Cladogenesis is that  Cladogenesis explains the development of a large assortment of species from a smaller set of ancestral species through evolution. Unlike anagenesis, speciation through cladogenesis does not require the extinction of the ancestral population. Through successive cladogenetic splits, either with or without the extinction of the ancestral population, the total number of species increases over time. Cladogenesis is probably a more common form of evolution and speciation than anagenesis [See: Stanford Encyclopedia].In case you don't know what is the concept of anagenesis  it is when the population of an entire species changes on a genetic level without a split.

Evolution gains another pillar of support when we find convergence between multiple phylogenies developed by multiple, independent means. For instance, the convergence between phylogeny developed from genetics and phylogeny developed from morphological characteristics of fossils.

Convergence between genetics and fossils aren't the only relevant convergences to speak of, however. I recently read an example of convergence between two genetically-derived phylogenies: The common pocket gopher (family Geomyidae) and species of the genus Geomydoecus, their pubic lice. As it state sin the following:

"Phylogenies based on mitochondrial cytochrome oxidase I (COI) sequences for 15 taxa of gophers and 15 species of Geomydoecus show considerable congruence (Fig. 2). More detailed comparisons of these phylogenies revealed that 8 of the 12 ingroup nodes (67%) show potential cospeciation events (Page and Hafner, 1996). This amount of cospeciation is more than expected by chance alone (P < 0.01; reconciliation analysis, as implemented in TreeMap 1; Page, 1995). These comparisons indicate that cospeciation between gophers and lice is extensive."

 

 

 

 

 

In addition

Although I'm a firm believer in God the Creator I am a firm disbeliever in Creationism for the simple fact that Creationism, does not explain God. Creationism (quite differently from the Islamic perspective) does explain who "the Designer" is. How is this designer different from the Demiurge? Or different from some super intelligent space alien? The burden of proof is on the Creationist not the Evolutionist.

 I have no knowledge about these subjects. But I will soon try to study a part of it. I was wondering from the religious point of view. Allah is the Creator. The word used is "Khalaq" in Arabic.  I wonder if there is any mention of  a word for evolution too.

Even though genes may be working making changes, but genes were made or provided (created) by Allah in the scheme of things.

The theory of evolution has three important steps:

1. Origin of Species   2. Natural selection   3. Survival of the fittest.

 I feel that number 1 and 3 are possible. But the number 2 is the odd one out. Just by natural or unnatural selection, the body parts do not fit into action, i.e. just by chance the things get joined together and make a man or a tiger.

We have eyes and the optical chord takes the optical signals to the right place in the brain where message is analysed. The eye ball, the nerves, the memory cells all work together at high speed and bring about a visual result.

 I will rather leave this subject to the two learned men. Thanks.

Evolution explains a lot. Creationism explains nothing.

Inayat Bunglawala vs Harun Yahya

Your many professionally produced books, CDs and DVDs seeking to expose the alleged fallacy of the theory of evolution have been widely distributed and translated into numerous languages and have brought you a large readership and following amongst Muslims in recent years. In Islamic bookstores throughout Europe and the US it is your striking and colourful works that stand out most clearly.

It was only when I began reading the works of those very same scientists, including Richard Dawkins, Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldredge, Colin Patterson etc first hand that I realised just how selective and misleading the quotations in your books were. Biological evolution was an established fact. The "theory" part referred to the mechanism by which evolution had occurred and far from being on the verge of collapse, it was in vibrant health and had been shown in test after test to have immense explanatory power.

Evolutionary theory helps shed light on a multitude of scientific questions including providing a compelling explanation for why a dispassionate study of the fossil record shows the gradual and sequential appearance on earth of single-celled organisms, then fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, and also why humans � as well as other animals � have numerous suboptimal characteristics. What mechanism do you propose better explains these phenomena?

Human beings are instructed in the Qur'an by God to undertake a study of the creation of the heavens and the earth. Our enemy is surely not evolution, but ignorance.
Salaams,
Inayat

In fact, every single fossil discovered to date displays a clear relationship to its earlier ancestors � just as you would expect according to evolutionary theory. How does your creationist theory which considers that each individual species was instantaneously beamed into existence better explain these observations?

I am unsure what you meant to imply by stating that the theory of evolution cannot provide an explanation for the big bang. Neither can Einstein's theory of gravitation, but presumably you do not reject the phenomenon of gravity on that account?

I think it is a very unwise strategy to pin your faith on there never being a proper scientific explanation for how the first living cell arose. This "God of the gaps" approach relies on our present ignorance on particular issues remaining eternal. I will quote from the scientist (and believer), Kenneth R Miller's Finding Darwin's God:

Salaams,
Inayat

There is no such thing as a "transitionary" form. Every life form is transitionary. Species do not turn into other species, they evolve characteristics by mutation and natural selection, therefore we will always find lifeforms in a "perfect" state because they lived, grew to a certain size, then died. Fossils are not the norm, they only occur in very specific geological conditions.

How could a MUSLIM believe in evolution?

The Qur'an says the creation of Jesus (pbuh) was like the creation of Adam (pbuh).

So how can you say that Adam was evolved from Apes when his creation was like that of Jesus?