Evolution contradicts Islam

[torkham]

Please elucidate a little here my learned PFers. Help me understand need for scientific evidence for Islam

is not religion a belief system? and isn't blind faith one of the axioms of a belief system, and placing this next to the scientific system, isn't empiricism (of Bacon) a basic tenet of the scientific method?
if the above two points hold true, then simple syllogism tells you that the two are mutually exclusive, that is you cannot examine faith by empirical evidence and vice versa, you cannot accept a scientific theory on blind faith

secondly a search for religious truth is not best served with scientifc method, which is inductive when drawing conclusions, and deductive in the process, the former (induction) clearly results in theories that can be falsified and verified by newer empirical evidence (Popper), leaving theories to develop.

i have so far placed my belief in islam by faith, i accept it, challenging the patently ridiculous ideas*, and leaving the core ideas on my absolute belief of quran and the most reliable of ahadeeth, supplemented with reason and logic, context and knowing as much as possible how arabic language has evolved.

i dont enter realms of investigating islam with tools of the scientific method; i find these blunt for the highest knowledge of deen.

opinions please.





*some one told me that Allah is noor, and seriously engaged on posibility wave-particle aspect of the creator, instead of examining the metaphor

Francis Bacon, the Empiricist
Karl Popper

[Alchemist]

^ Thank you tor khan for giving your opinion on the matter here.

This is the great tragedy of our time that "muslims" consider scientific empericism to be a superior source of knowledge then even the Qur'an.

It is sad to see that they religiously adhere to the supposed "scientific" narrative on the origin of the universe and life, and the origin of humans, then subordinate the narrative of the Qur'an to the former by rejecting the "sciences" of theology (the ahadith, the exegesis) and changing the meanings of the Qur'an.

My opponents have the habit of denying everything I say by saying that I didn't refute anything. They will never acknowledge my refutations when they are proven wrong on every aspect of their "beliefs" by using their own arguments against them. So their game becomes one of "definitions", as to how the Qur'an is metaphoric and there is a "spiritual" realm and a "material realm" and consequently, the materia realm is the reality and "spiritual" or "ghostly world" the khyaly (imagination of Allah). And when I called them materialist, they took offense to the truth.

And torkhan, you are right. They do try to use empiricism to study the Qur'an even. Which is Scimiter uses term's like "the god hypothesis". Can God Almighty be even called a "Hypothesis". Then he says that I don't have a scientific background? A Scientific hypothesis is one that can be TESTED. Is this phrase not ridiculous? Am I wrong to call it ridiculous?


Then he says that I skirted the scientific issues with Goat and Sun.
Didn't I give enough proof that evolution is a delusion? Didn't I prove that it's basis for attributing similarities between species as "analogous" or "homologous" are completely arbitrary? That none of their claims for speciation have been "scientifically" proven? Further more, I gave a challenge to anyone who could produce one shred of evidence that random mutation could produce beneficial traits (in their own right) and if they did I would ban myself from the forum. So what gives? Didn't I prove that there is no DIRECT evidence for evolution? So many of their claims are so bogus and out right ridiculous that they are too ashmed to even argue with me on it. I studied evolution under some of it's greatest proponents, and they too dedicated a greater deal of their time trying to explain it's "controversies". It's open ended questions, and loose ends that they are having a difficult time explaining away. Vehemently Sun insisted that human beings, homo sapians which we are supposedly, have only existed for 50,000 years, until I showed her the proof that all that they consider as different "species" are actually different "races" of humans. They used to depict neanderthals as ape like barbarians, like the scenes of Space Odyssy, until a just a few years ago they discovered that these were a people of culture with consciousness. Then I showed proof that even 700,000 years ago humans sailed the seven seas. There are even more archeological evidence of human consciousness that date back even a 1 million years old. Then I challenged them on the radiometric dating techniques, what does goat know about it's science? Scimiter keeps harking that I am rehashing Harun Yahya arguments, but then gives a node and a wink to goat when he copies and pastes the entire website of "talk origin". Yahya's own arguments are based on other's arguments. Let's talk about the biochemical impossibility for the spontaneous folding of complex protein chains. Anyone? Dogma is what people believe to be true without questioning it at all. And this has been the attitude of the proponents of Evolution throughout my debates with them. That they will dogmatically repeat the same mantra "species look different, unicellular before others, therefore, evolution". This is science? I am skirting over issues?

What is their biggest objection to me? That I am hurting their feelings! I am ridiculing them! Yes! I am ridiculing. You are worthy of ridicule.

Believe what you want to believe. This is the freedom that Allah has given you in this life.

But Adam was a real human being. He was the first man and he was created from "clay". Clay is dirt/earth mixed with water. This is our essence, that we are off the earth, and when we die, we return to the earth. The description of the stages are explicitly said by Allah to mean the stages of our development, and in no way alludes to "speciation". Evolutionists believe that the first unicellular organism evolved into a prokaryote, then a eukaryote. The evidence shows that the prokaryotes, archae, and eukaryotes co-existed always. The biochemists admit that it is impossible for such a "prototype" to these different organisms to have ever existed. The proof was presented already in the science section. And as you can all see...Scimiter is the one who "skirts" about the issues raised. When I asked whether he believes in specific ayats, such as the miracle of Isa ibn maryam who molded clay into a bird, and by the permission of Allah, came to life and flew. So if Issa ibn Maryam can, by Allah's leave, then can't Allah create Adam from clay? Mathalee Issa inda Allahi Ka mathalee Adam, Khalaquhu min turab faqalla lahu kun fayukun. But Scimiter says that the above two ayas cannot disprove evolution. Dogma? You must lack an appreciation for the mieotic mechanism to believe that it can, by chance, turn mitotic, and thus instead of 23 have 46 chromosomes in an egg, which would automatically turn into a zygote? No, I guess it isn't creation ex nihilo then?

What is Scimiter's argument? That I am ignorant. I lack knowledge. I am pretending. Something is off with me. I am a bully. Fine.

Even if it is from anti-islam website, they are quoting AHADITH and ULAMA of deen. You are going to reject the truth because of my character? Because of the website is anti-islam because Harun Yahya is shady? This is all you have to fall back on?

Everyone knew something was off with you as soon as you admitted to being a "Agnostic Theist", and a "Mu'tazali".
In your eyes, Goat and Sun is more knowledgeble than me?
And when did I say "jews were the root of all evil". Who is twisting words now? I kept telling you that the jews have the power in America and are dictating American foreign policy. That they hijacked the economy of Americas by inventing a non-governmental institution, which is by name only "Federal" (federal reserve system). Then when I showed you proofs for it, you kept rejecting it. It's no secret that the price of Gold is set by the Rothschild Family in London. Jews hate goyim, it's part of their Talmudic teachings and there is no "conspiracy" about this. I already knew how you were when I tested you on the credibility of Platetechtonic theory.

You are just another "Muslim Reformist". You know the saying "Birds of a feather flock together"? You are flocking with the heretics. The muffasseerin, ulama of deen are wrong according to you. And just because I am using them as my source for validating the real meaning of the ayats, you are twisting it around and saying that I am claiming the ulama's word are Allah's words..when in fact their words are based on Muhammad's (sallalahu alihi wa salam) words, who is also called Kaleem ul Allah (the one who has talked to Allah).

I just had to "defend" my self against your preposterous allegations, name callings and out rageous lies. It's ok. You don't have to give another "rebuttle" like that again. Truth is bitter.

And don't turn into a mountain goat and repeat your self another 50 times.

Salam

[ScimitarXEdge]

All melodrama aside; the reason why people reject Alchemist's claims of "proof" isn't because we're proven wrong and we're in denial; but it's because the logical relevance of the arguments you claim as proof are lacking or irrelevant.

Take for example the verse about the comparison of Jesus to Isa and the verse of which is alleged to refer to the virgin birth. It failed to prove things on the basis of irrelevance for the following reasons.

1.) It doesn't address why there are several explanations for the existence and creation of man in the Qur'an, one is water, one is soil, one is clay and others from water. All these allude that some of these are not literal and some of these are metaphoric or else the Qur'an would be contradicting itself. What we can observe in reality determines We have the Qur'an itself highlighting certain verses are metaphoric.

2.) The verse itself is inconclusive, only the Mufassireen conjecture is what's at play here, there is no canonical material which supports that the verses being commented on mean what the Mufassireen

3.) Even if the Mufassireen are correct in their assumptions; it holds no significance, miraculous events do not account for general phenomena. A Miraculous event is exactly Miraculous because of the Naturalistic Pattern which other things happen. This does not prove that Adam(as) was literally made from Nothing, as clay, even taken literally is SOMETHING.

4.) The Logical conundrum of strict literalism of how a something such as clay can be making something out of nothing.


As for your claims there in your paragraph I'll address them summarily
Direct evidence for evolution:

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Random Mutation/beneficial traits

: Straw Man, random mutation doesn't give beneficial traits, Natural Selection does.

Evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


and this is why it's clear that you are scientifically ignorant, not because we're name calling you, not to disparage you; but because if you have any actual beyond merely googling creationist-website-level kniowledge, you'd know that no one claims that beneficial traits just "randomly" appear, they're selected by environmental conditions. The mutation that suits the environment, wins. Nothing random about it.


Studied Evolution under some it's greatest proponents? Oh really, such as who, and when have they had you as a student? Can we corroborate that you were their student? Can you cite any specific literature by them and provide refutations to them?

People 700,000 years ago used to sail the seas. Firstly this wouldn't mean they're homo sapien sapiens; but this would only prove Evolution not disprove it. it would also verify that Adam(as) the first Homosapien sapien, was not merely made out of clay, but descended from pre-Anthropoids.

the biochemical impossibility for the spontaneous folding of complex protein chains. Protein folding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

now show us here; (no I won't sift through your other posts) with a Peer Reviewed Reference that complex protein folding would be impossible; what chemical laws would prevent such a thing from occurring? again use peer reviewed sources to support the claim.

"They believe evolution without questioning it ..now THAT'S DOGMA"; that is totally a false accusation, part of the reason the science behind evolution is so strong is because it has been questioned, and these questions lead to testing and analysis. They confirm what they test or debunk it and thereby we learn how things work.

Biochemists do not refute the possibility of a prototype Adam, because it wouldn't be in their scope as biochemistry doesn't test the "other realms"; by reference of a Prototypical Adam was in reference to how Adam existed in Heaven as a model of what would be the earthly Adam. This was mere explanation of what the allegory of "clay Adam" could represent if we stopped taking it literally.

Calling you ignorant isn't my "argument"; it's the conclusion drawn based on the weaknesses in your response; You simply have no idea what you're talking about and it's evident here and in the other thread.

By the way I am waiting on that Peer Reviewed Reference you claimed you had in the Science Section thread, I won't go link hunting. Post the Link here. Or show the Citations for the reference.

as for the Jew conspiracy stuff; it was only to highlight other areas in which you use dodgy, speculative arguments.

I don't reject the sciences of theology, rather I reject opinions lacking rigorous support, especially on matters such as this. On matters of legality, then the Mufassireen have provided adequate evidence, but how would they know about what these verses mean unless they examined all the relevant information? And since Nature is what's being alluded to here, wouldnt a study of Nature be reqyired? These Mufassireen only interpreted things based on their understandings; which has no research or testing.

You're taking the mufassireen words as equivalent of God's words, if you accuse us of heresy and deviation; what then would the guess work of men be? You attempt to misrepresent our preference for science as being rejection of God; but this isn't so. We rely more directly on God than you or the mufassireen have. As God governs and engenders Nature and thereby it would only be God communicating through Nature to those who are conscious. Even the Qur'an itself makes note of this.

Yet who are these mufassireen speaking to, where did they get their certainties from? Some speculative opinions on what a certain hadith or verse about Adam's creation relates to? If anything is a blatant example of heresy; it's this trend of taking Guess Work by Mufassireen as Certain embodiments of God's Truths; over God's communications through Nature itself.

[Alchemist]

All of the mufassereen are wrong but scimiter is right, since all of them are in agreement that the ayats that pertain to the earth being flat, is meant in the literal sense. And also the ayats the claim Adam was created out of clay, earthly matter, is also in the literal sense. And Isa being born to a virgin is also literal. But you say they are all wrong. Ibn Kathir is wrong. Fine. What about Muhaditheen? They fabricated the ahadith that specifically mention that creation of Adam and all the above in the literal sense? They too were ignorant? But more importantly, who are the people that "reject Alchemist's proof"? It's just you so far...what makes you think you have the whole ummah behind you?


But let's not split hair over that since you already made it clear that you are Agnostic Theist. Relevance? An agnostic theist claims that God is unknowable, yet what is the argument in the Qur'an? Fa bi Ayii AaLa e Rabukum Tukaziban? Maryam (aliha Salam) according to you, could possibly have been a zania (prostitute), but you accept that she gave birth to a prophet? Ajeeb.
So who do you think was the possible father of Prophet Isa Alihi Salam? Prophet Yusuf? They didn't even live in the same time frame...but this is more plausible to you? Fine.
And you think the aya "Kun Faykun" that applies both to Adam and Issa alihihuma salam, are irrelevant to our discussions?
You won't deny that Isa's birth was a miracle but deny that the creation of Adam was not a Miracle? Why? Because Wikipedia says so? Fine.

So if I say Lemonade is made out of water in one discussion.
Then go somewhere else, and then say Lemonade is made out of lemon.
Then I go to another discussion and say Lemonade is made out of Sugar.
Does that mean I have contradicted myself?
Or does it mean that I am talking in metaphor?
OK. Fine. It's metaphor.


Now I am curious. These "Pre-Anthropoids" that were sailing the Sea, are actually the father of Adam? So if they were building boats, it means they were knowledgeable too and had consciousness like us "homo sapians" too. Why would Allah create them, like us, but then choose us over them, and have the angels bow down to us, when they were just like us? Do you see the inconsistency here? You are pretty much distorting the whole narrative of the Qur'an. At this point I have to wonder is there any part of the Qur'an that is not metaphorical for you? Angels, heaven, hell, shaitan...all metaphors.

Did you notice that when you copy pasted Wikipedia link to me as proof of common descent, in it there were no actual DIRECT evidence of evolution written? Can I have your full attention buddy? Can you get a little more serious? Deja Vu...am I talking to Mountain goat again?

In response to your Common Origin of descent (wikipedia?)
"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves"

The universal ancestor


..at its base the universal TOL [The Tree of Life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007] - PubMed result


structural biology has demonstrated links between viruses infecting the three domains of life pointing to a very ancient origin of viruses. However, presently viruses do not find a place on the universal tree of life, which is thus only a tree of cellular life.
The not so universal tree of life or the place of ... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009] - PubMed result

Uprooting the tree of life

http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf

I don't know if you even what ORFan Genes are ..but still you could probably pass these on to your friend who wants to simulate a combinatronics of DNA evolution.
http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/151/8/2499


We
refer to such sequences as orphan ORFs or ORFans for
short.2–4 ORFans account for 25–30% of the ORFs of each
newly sequenced genome,5,6 and their percentage can even
be as high as 60%,7 suggesting that sequence diversity in
Nature may be greater than previously expected. Because
little can be learned about ORFans via homology, only
experimental characterization can help elucidate their
functions and origin.8–13 Thus, each ORFan represents a
mystery awaiting interpretation.13,14
ORFans may correspond to highly divergent sequences
that actually belong to known families (but are beyond
recognition capabilities of current tools),2 or to sequences
that correspond to new, unique, single-member families.
2,15 Because there is no obvious evolutionary mechanism
to account for the origin of single-member families,
one might accept the explanation of their origin as extreme
divergence.
http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~dfischer/orfanprot.pdf

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

Here, we identified a set of DNA transposon families dubbed SPACE INVADERS (or SPIN) whose consensus sequences are ≈96% identical over their entire length (2.9 kb) in the genomes of murine rodents (rat/mouse), bushbaby (prosimian primate), little brown bat (laurasiatherian), tenrec (afrotherian), opossum (marsupial), and two non-mammalian tetrapods (anole lizard and African clawed frog). In contrast, SPIN elements were undetectable in other species represented in the sequence databases, including 19 other mammals with draft whole-genome assemblies. This patchy distribution, coupled with the extreme level of SPIN identity in widely divergent tetrapods and the overall lack of selective constraint acting on these elements, is incompatible with vertical inheritance, but strongly indicative of multiple horizontal introductions.
Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods

You want more?

Then you posted Wikipedia's Page of Evolution. I could easily disprove everything on it using just PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS. Just pick any of the points mentioned on that page..or do you expect me to answer to everything there in a few minutes of time?

Again, if anything is in question here it is your lack of knowledge of Evolution...which apparently comes from wikipedia. Fine. Let's stick to wiki.

random mutation doesn't give beneficial traits, Natural Selection does.

Lord Natural Selection, Supahanhu Wa Tala

and this is why it's clear that you are scientifically ignorant, not because we're name calling you, not to disparage you; but because if you have any actual beyond merely googling creationist-website-level kniowledge, you'd know that no one claims that beneficial traits just "randomly" appear, they're selected by environmental conditions. The mutation that suits the environment, wins. Nothing random about it.

OK. Maybe you should call University of Berkeley ASAP and tell them to change this page:
Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Mutations are Random

The mechanisms of evolution—like natural selection and genetic drift—work with the random variation generated by mutation.
Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Now I am awestruck. I just can't imagine how are you going to rebuttle this? LOL
What are you going to say to this because you have clearly said something SO WRONG that if you wrote this on a test paper on Evolution 101 at Berkeley University, you would get an F.

But then you were going to test my knowledge of the science? You want to check my credentials? LOL


Are you serious?



You didn't know this? You didn't know that the actual claim is that beneficial traits just randomly appear? You just supposed that there is some divine intervention assumed in the theory? Is this how you use Islam? As a gap filler?

Melodrama is what you are all about, but you keep projecting it on to me.
Guess work is what Paleontology is based on. Ergo, what evolution is, is just one big soup of speculations and guesswork. If this weren't true there wouldn't be any "Debate" about it. How many people are debating quantum mechanics, Newtonian Physics, The Periodic Table of the Elements, Hubble's Law?
I am waiting for you to define what a species is. Now give me your proofs! And stop dodging my questions...the ayat in the Qur'an where Issa is said to have molded clay into the shape of birds, then by the permission of Allah, it came to life, do you believe it or not?

Please stop projecting on to me. You are no different than Goat now. Are you just going to repeat your self another 20 times or actually debate me on the "tenants of evolution" one by one. Before you kept saying that I lack the knowledge base for it ...but so far, between the two of us, it has only been I who has spoken the language of science, where as you have just recently posted wikipedia links. Are you just going to make up excuses?

Heretics united?

Salam

[ScimitarXEdge]

All of the mufassereen are wrong but scimiter is right, since all of them are in agreement that the ayats that pertain to the earth being flat, is meant in the literal sense. And also the ayats the claim Adam was created out of clay, earthly matter, is also in the literal sense. And Isa being born to a virgin is also literal. But you say they are all wrong. Ibn Kathir is wrong. Fine. What about Muhaditheen? They fabricated the ahadith that specifically mention that creation of Adam and all the above in the literal sense? They too were ignorant? But more importantly, who are the people that "reject Alchemist's proof"? It's just you so far...what makes you think you have the whole ummah behind you?

Let's look at it logically, what would be closer to Allah(swt)'s interpretation; a measure of Nature which Allah(swt) himself would have created, or stuff humans guess at? There in lies your answer.

But let's not split hair over that since you already made it clear that you are Agnostic Theist. Relevance? An agnostic theist claims that God is unknowable, yet what is the argument in the Qur'an? Fa bi Ayii AaLa e Rabukum Tukaziban? Maryam (aliha Salam) according to you, could possibly have been a zania (prostitute), but you accept that she gave birth to a prophet? Ajeeb.
So who do you think was the possible father of Prophet Isa Alihi Salam? Prophet Yusuf? They didn't even live in the same time frame...but this is more plausible to you? Fine.

I see what you're doing and it's a very crooked tactic; trying to misrepresent what I wrote to discredit the position; I said she could have been bethrothed and thus Allah(swt) may have been suggesting to consummate her relationship , which according to Israiliyat was a man named Yusuf, to which I said Allah 3alim.

I won't follow your sunni or shi'a dogma on the issue; because where do they get their notions from? You want me to take unresearched guesses over stuff that has research.

An Agnostic Theist does not necessarily claim that God is Unknowable; rather we cannot falsify the God Hypothesis.

And you think the aya "Kun Faykun" that applies both to Adam and Issa alihihuma salam, are irrelevant to our discussions?
You won't deny that Isa's birth was a miracle but deny that the creation of Adam was not a Miracle? Why? Because Wikipedia says so? Fine.

Not necessarily, because it applies to us as well, as we are all apart of the creation; it seems that it only highlights them to stress that they were mortal men.


I never said "because wikipedia says so" but because research which has been linked in those wikipieda articles says so; what research on the origin of life has any Mufasireen aside from Al-Jahith and some others have done?????

Well if you want to be technical life and how it arises in the universe is a miracle, the universe itself is a miracle if you really want to get down to it.

So if I say Lemonade is made out of water in one discussion.
Then go somewhere else, and then say Lemonade is made out of lemon.
Then I go to another discussion and say Lemonade is made out of Sugar.
Does that mean I have contradicted myself?
Or does it mean that I am talking in metaphor?
OK. Fine. It's metaphor.

That's a bad comparison, firstly it does not say a little of this and a little of that was taken and then it was all "mixed up" , it talks about "quintessence" (sulala) of clay (tin) so it's not merely some mixture, but indicating certain materials, extracted from the earth. It talks about being fashioned from clay meaning a mound of clay was used and shaped. Coming "from" water does not indicate mixture, but origin. Clay does not originate from water; it's hydrogenated aggregate of silicate material. Notice I didn't say mixed.

Now I am curious. These "Pre-Anthropoids" that were sailing the Sea, are actually the father of Adam? So if they were building boats, it means they were knowledgeable too and had consciousness like us "homo sapians" too. Why would Allah create them, like us, but then choose us over them, and have the angels bow down to us, when they were just like us? Do you see the inconsistency here? You are pretty much distorting the whole narrative of the Qur'an. At this point I have to wonder is there any part of the Qur'an that is not metaphorical for you? Angels, heaven, hell, shaitan...all metaphors.

Remember the Qur'an speaks of other species who walked the Earth and were wiped out

(Surah Al Dahr/Insan 76:28) It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints strong; but, when We will, We can substitute the like of them by a complete change.

Did you notice that when you copy pasted Wikipedia link to me as proof of common descent, in it there were no actual DIRECT evidence of evolution written? Can I have your full attention buddy? Can you get a little more serious? Deja Vu...am I talking to Mountain goat again?

In response to your Common Origin of descent (wikipedia?)

"Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves"

What I noticed is your selective reading. Look at the source material within the wikipedia article.

Such as this one

Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees

The average sequence divergence was only 1.24% ± 0.07% for the human-chimpanzee pair, 1.62% ± 0.08% for the human-gorilla pair, and 1.63% ± 0.08% for the chimpanzee-gorilla pair. These estimates, which were confirmed by additional data from GenBank, are substantially lower than previous ones, which included repetitive sequences and might have been based on less-accurate sequence data. The average sequence divergences between orangutans and humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas were 3.08% ± 0.11%, 3.12% ± 0.11%, and 3.09% ± 0.11%, respectively, which also are substantially lower than previous estimates...... .................................................T he neighbor-joining tree derived from the concatenated sequence of the 53 segments—24,234 bp in length—supports the Homo-Pan clade with a 100% bootstrap value. However, when each segment is analyzed separately, 22 of the 53 segments (∼42%) give a tree that is incongruent with the species tree, suggesting a large effective population size (Ne) of the common ancestor of Homo and Pan. Indeed, a parsimony analysis of the 53 segments and 37 protein-coding genes leads to an estimate of Ne = 52,000 to 96,000. As this estimate is 5 to 9 times larger than the long-term effective population size of humans (∼10,000) estimated from various genetic polymorphism data, the human lineage apparently had experienced a large reduction in effective population size after its separation from the chimpanzee lineage

and you're cherry picking the source:



The universal ancestor


read on

The scenario pictured starts when “genetic temperatures” were very high, cellular entities (progenotes) were very simple, and information processing systems were inaccurate. Initially, both mutation rate and lateral gene transfer levels were elevated. The latter was pandemic and pervasive to the extent that it, not vertical inheritance, defined the evolutionary dynamic. As increasingly complex and precise biological structures and processes evolved, both the mutation rate and the scope and level of lateral gene transfer, i.e., evolutionary temperature, dropped, and the evolutionary dynamic gradually became that characteristic of modern cells. The various subsystems of the cell “crystallized,” i.e., became refractory to lateral gene transfer, at different stages of “cooling,” with the translation apparatus probably crystallizing first. Organismal lineages, and so organisms as we know them, did not exist at these early stages

..at its base the universal TOL [The Tree of Life] rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true. Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis. [Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007] - PubMed result

Cherry picking quotes I see; you haven't read the entire abstract or you did and just left it out intentionally, very dishonest.


:

This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation. Pattern pluralism (the recognition that different evolutionary models and representations of relationships will be appropriate, and true, for different taxa or at different scales or for different purposes) is an attractive alternative to the quixotic pursuit of a single true TOL.

That's from your same source; Your Peer Reviewed Journals appear to be claiming something totally different from what you claim they say.
all your article is saying is that we didn't come from one single cell, but various cells existing due to various environmental influences mutated at a high rate, some of them are what lead to evolution to current species. This article actually PROVES evolution not disproves. So I thank you for picking a source that debunks your premise.

Furthermore from what it appears you seem to be arguing Darwinian Models of Evolution with Modern Models of Evolution; most of Darwins ideas, except Natural Selection are antiquated, so you're debating a straw man/red herring. Darwin did not study biochemiistry or genetics; he didn't have those tools at his advantage. Modern Evolutionists do, please debate MODERN theories; just because Darwin is accredited with developing the idea in science, doesnt mean he's the "be all and end all".

You failed this round.

structural biology has demonstrated links between viruses infecting the three domains of life pointing to a very ancient origin of viruses. However, presently viruses do not find a place on the universal tree of life, which is thus only a tree of cellular life.
The not so universal tree of life or the place of ... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009] - PubMed result

again nothing to do with debunking evolution; but rather stressing viruses should also be considered living on account that they have protein coding just as cells do and there may have been lateral gene exchanges.

read your sources carefully please. It only reinforces you have no idea what you're talking about: Suggestion, instead of google searching for things based on key word searches; actually examine the abstracts????

The not so universal tree of life or the place of ... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009] - PubMed result

Furthermore, structural biology has demonstrated links between viruses infecting the three domains of life pointing to a very ancient origin of viruses. However, presently viruses do not find a place on the universal tree of life, which is thus only a tree of cellular life. In view of the polythetic nature of current life definitions, viruses cannot be dismissed as non-living material. On earth we have therefore at least two large DNA sequence spaces, one represented by capsid-encoding viruses and another by ribosome-encoding cells. Despite their probable distinct evolutionary origin, both spheres were and are connected by intensive two-way gene transfers.

Uprooting the tree of life

http://shiva.msu.montana.edu/courses/mb437_537_2005_fall/docs/uprooting.pdf

I don't know if you even what ORFan Genes are ..but still you could probably pass these on to your friend who wants to simulate a combinatronics of DNA evolution.

firstly it's combinaTORICS

secondly Orphan genes are nothing new in the evolution discourse

again from your own sources.

All genes are taxonomically restricted at some level. For example, any genes found in Eubacteria and not in Archaea or Eukaryotes are TRGs at the domain level. Genes restricted to Firmicutes or Proteobacteria are TRGs at the division level. The orphan genes reported in this study are TRGs at the species level because isolates of 122 different species were included in the analysis. Orphans, defined as species- or strain-level TRGs, may be of special interest for their contributions to ecological adaptation. The concept of cataloguing genes that define (are restricted to) a given taxonomic group is already established (e.g. Graham et al., 2000) and we believe orphans firmly belong within this framework.

as your previous articles demonstrated the lack of phylogeneity amongst Simpler Organisms isn't due to their lack of relationship, but because they came about at a different evolutionary stage, as these stages changed they crystalized and started showing more distinct relationships and hence with higher order complex organisms we do find phylogeneity.

This is ALL from your sources. NOT MINE, YOURS!



http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/151/8/2499

We
refer to such sequences as orphan ORFs or ORFans for
short.2–4 ORFans account for 25–30% of the ORFs of each
newly sequenced genome,5,6 and their percentage can even
be as high as 60%,7 suggesting that sequence diversity in
Nature may be greater than previously expected. Because
little can be learned about ORFans via homology, only
experimental characterization can help elucidate their
functions and origin.8–13 Thus, each ORFan represents a
mystery awaiting interpretation.13,14
ORFans may correspond to highly divergent sequences
that actually belong to known families (but are beyond
recognition capabilities of current tools),2 or to sequences
that correspond to new, unique, single-member families.
2,15 Because there is no obvious evolutionary mechanism
to account for the origin of single-member families,
one might accept the explanation of their origin as extreme
divergence.
http://www.cs.bgu.ac.il/~dfischer/orfanprot.pdf

again same as the other; all it's showing that bacterial evolution was not neatly parent-offspring, but often offspring-offspring. Nothing alarming. We have observed genetic exchanges between bacteria in different ways.

Doesn't debunk evolution just shows it's more complex.

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable.
Biology Direct | Full text | The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution

Again Debating Darwin is not the same as debating the Modern Idea of Evolution. We've come a long way from Darwin.

again YOUR sources speaking when read more fully.

The bushes in the tree of life (TOL) recently have been examined in some detail, and their appearance has been attributed, primarily, to cladogenesis compressed in time that appears to be characteristic of transitional epochs in evolution. Also, the erosion of the phylogenetic signal inevitably results in poor resolution of phylogenetic trees for ancient divergence events like all those listed above.

Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist

Here, we identified a set of DNA transposon families dubbed SPACE INVADERS (or SPIN) whose consensus sequences are ≈96% identical over their entire length (2.9 kb) in the genomes of murine rodents (rat/mouse), bushbaby (prosimian primate), little brown bat (laurasiatherian), tenrec (afrotherian), opossum (marsupial), and two non-mammalian tetrapods (anole lizard and African clawed frog). In contrast, SPIN elements were undetectable in other species represented in the sequence databases, including 19 other mammals with draft whole-genome assemblies. This patchy distribution, coupled with the extreme level of SPIN identity in widely divergent tetrapods and the overall lack of selective constraint acting on these elements, is incompatible with vertical inheritance, but strongly indicative of multiple horizontal introductions.
Repeated horizontal transfer of a DNA transposon in mammals and other tetrapods

again, read your sources

In contrast, reports of HT are scarce in eukaryotes and most cases of nuclear acquisition implicate transfers from prokaryotes or endosymbionts (2–6). The best documented instances of HT between the nuclear genomes of multicellular eukaryotes involve mobile genetic elements, and in particular class 2 or DNA mediated transposons (7, 8).................

Germline invasions by retroviruses have been documented for several mammals (15–18), and there is mounting evidence supporting the horizontal introduction of a snake retroposon in ruminants (19, 20). However, to our knowledge, there has been no substantiated report of HT of DNA transposons in mammals. Here, we present unequivocal evidence for the repeated HT of a DNA transposon family named SPACE INVADERS in 7 tetrapod lineages, including 5 mammalian orders.

You want more?

Then you posted Wikipedia's Page of Evolution. I could easily disprove everything on it using just PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS. Just pick any of the points mentioned on that page..or do you expect me to answer to everything there in a few minutes of time?

Please I feel that exposing how you misread and misunderstand your sources reinforces why Your Islamic version of Christian-Styled Creationism is a dead end.

I posted the Wikipedia article because it had references attached. Your Peer Reviewed articles do not reject evolution or that species came from other species but that certain aspects of their sequencing seem to come from lateral influences such as cladogenesis and infusion via germs/vriuses.

You're serving a weak counter rebuttal.

Again, if anything is in question here it is your lack of knowledge of Evolution...which apparently comes from wikipedia. Fine. Let's stick to wiki.

Lord Natural Selection, Supahanhu Wa Tala

yeah how heretical of me , believing God can act through the forces of nature.

OK. Maybe you should call University of Berkeley ASAP and tell them to change this page:
Evolution 101: Mutation Is Not "Directed"

Now I am awestruck. I just can't imagine how are you going to rebuttle this? LOL
What are you going to say to this because you have clearly said something SO WRONG that if you wrote this on a test paper on Evolution 101 at Berkeley University, you would get an F.

You can't be more awestruck than I am right now on how poorly you have an understanding of technical language and scientific literature

CAREFULLY read, it says MUTATIONS, your original argument was beneficial mutations. Mutations happen randomly of course, but BENEFICIAL mutations are NATURALLY selected that is if they suit the environment it helps the species/organism thrive and multiply.

Since you don't comprehend the material I'll quote and explain it for you

Factors in the environment are thought to influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random—whether a particular mutation happens or not is generally unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

What it's saying is that when environments cause mutations; it doesnt say "hey genes, code something that will make this organism more capable to ensure and thrive with my stressors"; what it does is it causes the mutations, but acts like a sieve; where it essentially is saying (metaphorically of course) "ok lets select which organisms can survive by killing off the ones who dont have mutations which can endure our stressors"; this is how natural selection works.


any questions? Should I call this straw man or deliberate distortion of terminology?

But then you were going to test my knowledge of the science? You want to check my credentials? LOL

I want to do so even more now than ever after this ill informed claim of comparing beneficial mutations with mutations in general.

Are you serious?

with you always, I only mess around with goofy cult members like Qadiyanis and such.

You didn't know this? You didn't know that the actual claim is that beneficial traits just randomly appear? You just supposed that there is some divine intervention assumed in the theory? Is this how you use Islam? As a gap filler?

Goodness
You're still misrepresenting the relationships between mutation and beneficial mutatiion. Let's put it this way No mutation is beneficial or detrimental until the environment or conditions an organism lives in either can be useful to the organism under those conditions or they're hurtful.

Melodrama is what you are all about, but you keep projecting it on to me.
Guess work is what Paleontology is based on. Ergo, what evolution is, is just one big soup of speculations and guesswork. If this weren't true there wouldn't be any "Debate" about it. How many people are debating quantum mechanics, Newtonian Physics, The Periodic Table of the Elements, Hubble's Law?
I am waiting for you to define what a species is. Now give me your proofs! And stop dodging my questions...the ayat in the Qur'an where Issa is said to have molded clay into the shape of birds, then by the permission of Allah, it came to life, do you believe it or not?

Con-artists who hijack religion and attempt to promote dogma for which they have no experimental basis for why things which go against their dogma are wrong will debate anything. This is nothing more than histrionics; They believe if they can act zealous about something their feigned sincerity will verify their merit. Nothing new.

Please stop projecting on to me. You are no different than Goat now. Are you just going to repeat your self another 20 times or actually debate me on the "tenants of evolution" one by one. Before you kept saying that I lack the knowledge base for it ...but so far, between the two of us, it has only been I who has spoken the language of science, where as you have just recently posted wikipedia links. Are you just going to make up excuses?

Heretics united?

Salam[

apparently, they seem to think that Mufassireen are embodiments of God, na'audhibillah.

[Alchemist]

Let's look at it logically, what would be closer to Allah(swt)'s interpretation; a measure of Nature which Allah(swt) himself would have created, or stuff humans guess at? There in lies your answer.

Here is the deal.

When your measurement of Nature is wrong and your interpretation of Allah's word's are wrong, you have nothing but dogma.

Evolution is not an objective science. It is totally subjective and I will go into the details below.

You are guessing at both.

There in lies the problem.

I see what you're doing and it's a very crooked tactic; trying to misrepresent what I wrote to discredit the position; I said she could have been bethrothed and thus Allah(swt) may have been suggesting to consummate her relationship , which according to Israiliyat was a man named Yusuf, to which I said Allah 3alim.

I am misrepresenting?

You are believing what the Israiliyats are saying? They tried to kill Issa Alihi Salam. They killed Zakariya Alihi Salam. They mock Jesus day and night and label his mother a prostitute...and you are going by what they are saying? This seems to be a more straightforward approach for you? But I am crooked?

I won't follow your sunni or shi'a dogma on the issue; because where do they get their notions from? You want me to take unresearched guesses over stuff that has research.

You take unresearched guesses all the time.
Islamic theology has a science of it's own. There is very little guess work amongst the Ulama. In fact qias, analogy, in fiqh is not even regarded in high esteem amongst the best of the best of Fuqaha. So the ulama have always tried to find the truth from the primary sources. From those who were taught by the Prophet, directly, of the meaning of each verses. You just guess that there is no research behind it, and go backwards about the issue.
In fact all your statements so far in regards to Islam are completely heretical and speculative. You are not even a Mutazali at this point. The aqida of Mutazali differs from the aqida of Ahlul Sunnah and Ahlul Shia are only on two or three points at the most. But here you are making claims about Adam and Isa and Maryam alihimu Salam that no Mutazali scholar has even made!

An Agnostic Theist does not necessarily claim that God is Unknowable; rather we cannot falsify the God Hypothesis.

God is not a hypothesis. Only the likes of Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, vehement atheists, use this oxymoronic phrase. And the plot thickens.

Why are you a muslim anyway?
What is your proof for the truth of Islam then?
You seem to know a lot more about hinduism than Islamic theology. I know you think that religion and spirituality gives man a sense of purpose and has beneficial effects but what is your ultimate reason for choosing Islam?

It seems that you came to Islam from the other side. First you take the words of the atheists, the Israilies, the hindus, the "sciences", then you cross checked it with Islam and then pick and choose what you like of it. Afatuminoona be ba3dil kitab wa Takfurona biba3d? This is actually a form of shirk brother.

Not necessarily, because it applies to us as well, as we are all apart of the creation; it seems that it only highlights them to stress that they were mortal men.

"It seems"...but are you 100% sure?
If this were true, then the verse would have also applied to Muhammed sallallahu alihi wa salam. It would have been said "Qul, Khalaqani Allahu min turabin faqala li Kun Fakunt" instead of "Qul, Inama Ana Basharun mislukum" or "Supahana Rabi Hal Kunto illa basharan rasulan?"...but the Qur'an is clear on it's arguments, rather you are extrapolating extra meanings from it. The verse "Kun fa yakun" is used for special circumstances, such as the creation of Adam and Jesus, peace be upon them. Everywhere, the argument for the mortality of the prophet's is made clearly " And We never sent before you (O Muhammad) any of the Messengers but verily, they ate food and walked in the markets." (25:20)

I never said "because wikipedia says so" but because research which has been linked in those wikipieda articles says so; what research on the origin of life has any Mufasireen aside from Al-Jahith and some others have done?????

They have the ahadith that I pointed out to you. And those are the words of Muhammad, sallalahu alihi wa salam. There research was only to verify the credibility of their sources. But for some reason you think they just dreamed it up. The virginity of Maryam, alihia salam is undisputed in the Ummah of Rasulullah. The creation of Adam happened in reality! And his story is not allegorical but actual, and this is held true! You have deviated.

Well if you want to be technical life and how it arises in the universe is a miracle, the universe itself is a miracle if you really want to get down to it.

Yes, everything is a miracle. So is the creation of Adam out of clay, from mud into a molded shape, is a miracle.

That's a bad comparison, firstly it does not say a little of this and a little of that was taken and then it was all "mixed up" , it talks about "quintessence" (sulala) of clay (tin) so it's not merely some mixture, but indicating certain materials, extracted from the earth. It talks about being fashioned from clay meaning a mound of clay was used and shaped. Coming "from" water does not indicate mixture, but origin. Clay does not originate from water; it's hydrogenated aggregate of silicate material. Notice I didn't say mixed

It talks about shaping.
The Ahadith confirm the "taking".
And yes, you can make lemonade without mixing. Water is a universal solvent, just throw sugar and lemon juice in it and it's called lemonade.
And it's "min ma-in", not "fi ma-in". Made out of water, not in water or "coming from" water. Just like it is "Min Salsalin, Min Hamamin Masnoon". So would that translate to "coming from earth"? You are contradicting your self because you mean to say that from earth is the essence (no such word as quinessence) and from water means origin but there is no basis for this to be true.
Yes I am noticing the way you are grasping for straws here. I hope you realize it too.

Remember the Qur'an speaks of other species who walked the Earth and were wiped out

Look who is speculating now? It doesn't say other "species" it says "Qaryatin" which translates to townships or villages or cities but not "species".

(Surah Al Dahr/Insan 76:28) It is We Who created them, and We have made their joints strong; but, when We will, We can substitute the like of them by a complete change.

The irony here is that you are guilty of that which you are accusing the mufassareen of.
The aya uses the word "Wa Iz Aradna" which literally translates to "And IF we wanted to"...meaning if Allah wanted to he could wipe all of humanity out and create something new. It doesn't say that an older creation, another species, was wiped out and we replaced them. That would mean that Allah made a mistake and he had to go back to the "Drawing board". You make strong objections to anthropomorphism when it comes to the ayat of yad and Wajh, but your view of Allah is anthropomorphic it self, in that you think Allah needs to "think" or "process" or "imagine" or make prototypes and "archytypes" in a quasi real state. No! Allah is perfect. His knowledge is perfect which means that it is complete. He does not "imagine" or "think" like we humans do nor does he make "mistakes".

What I noticed is your selective reading. Look at the source material within the wikipedia article.

Let's see the science of it.

Such as this one

Genomic Divergences between Humans and Other Hominoids and the Effective Population Size of the Common Ancestor of Humans and Chimpanzees

In science what is of greater interest and most difficult to discern is the methodology.

In this study the scientists took DNA sample from the blood of one human and one gorilla and one chimpanzee. Then they randomly selected DNA samples. Ok. Not so random. They first had to exclude all coding regions, and to do that they compared it with the website of GENOME CHANNEL. Then they took out any repetitious basepairs were taken out, except those repititions that were over 800 basepairs. It uses the term Contig, which means contiguous sequence, but the definition of this word is elusive and many. So I take it to mean "over lapping DNA segments" and it says it searched for autosomals, so it excluded sex chromosome.

Then they used a software called DAMBE (Data Analysis in Molecular Biology and Evolution) by XuhXua Xia.

Then I went and found the manual of this program to find out how it works, since this study is completely based on the parameters set by this program.

Basically, you first upload your program on to your computer. Then each molecular sequence has a LOCUS in the Genbank. So basically, you tell the computer what locations of the DNA you are trying to compare. So in this study chromosome 12 location of 4 locuses of humans and 2 of chimpanzees were selected in the program. Basically, you tell the program what species and what chromosome you want to compare against each other..then you can even specify to the program if you want introns or exons spliced or whole sequences...or whatever.



Then This is how it makes the matches:




Obviously there HAS to be a match. And obviously the one with the least difference is the most likely! OF course EVOLUTION IS FACT. Duh!

But yeah, it's not just about sequence match. There is a formula!



Basically, you don't want to take out too many sequences out to get a 100% match, and you don't want to take out too few and get no match!
So how do you decide what the optimum match should be?



Of course you use the PHYLOGENETIC TREE!
Not like there is any doubt about this tree! It is never contested!
Oh did I post those articles that said that the phylogenetic tree should be uprooted? That it is wrong? That there is doubt about it? But this software is based on it!

Oh you don't believe it? Of course not.
I am full of trickery. I am dishonest. I am crooked.
The software is free.
And here is the screen shots that show that you can pick the phylogeny trees to let the computer know what it is you are looking for:
Chapter 36. DAMBE

So this is your idea of "science"?

and you're cherry picking the source:

Evolutionists can cherry pick the genome. It is OK if they do it.
Heaven forbid that I would do such a thing.

The universal ancestor


read on

It starts as followes..." The scenario pictured starts...." and ends as follows "probably".
But read on further:

Biologists have long subscribed to the powerful, unifying idea that all life on Earth arose from a common ancestor (1). Nothing concrete could be said about the nature of this ancestor initially, but it was intuitively assumed to be simple, often likened to a prokaryote, and generally held to have had little or no intermediary metabolism (2). Only when biology could be defined on the level of molecular sequences would it become possible to seriously question the nature of this ancestor.

This was Mountain goats mantra...unicellular organism, before simple, then complex, therefore simple leads to complex, thus humans from common ancestor of bacteria...Here the article disproves the myth of "common ancestor of all living things". No, you are right. It doesn't dismiss the theory of evolution out right. He would probably get fired from his job before he could do that. His paper wouldn't even get published. But it knocks off a myth that was held on to with dear life for a hundred years! Now you are also mystified with that same belief...and 20 years from now...you will be disillusioned. Inshallah.

Cherry picking quotes I see; you haven't read the entire abstract or you did and just left it out intentionally, very dishonest


:


That's from your same source; Your Peer Reviewed Journals appear to be claiming something totally different from what you claim they say.
all your article is saying is that we didn't come from one single cell, but various cells existing due to various environmental influences mutated at a high rate, some of them are what lead to evolution to current species. This article actually PROVES evolution not disproves. So I thank you for picking a source that debunks your premise.

Furthermore from what it appears you seem to be arguing Darwinian Models of Evolution with Modern Models of Evolution; most of Darwins ideas, except Natural Selection are antiquated, so you're debating a straw man/red herring. Darwin did not study biochemiistry or genetics; he didn't have those tools at his advantage. Modern Evolutionists do, please debate MODERN theories; just because Darwin is accredited with developing the idea in science, doesnt mean he's the "be all and end all".

You failed this round.




again nothing to do with debunking evolution; but rather stressing viruses should also be considered living on account that they have protein coding just as cells do and there may have been lateral gene exchanges.

read your sources carefully please. It only reinforces you have no idea what you're talking about: Suggestion, instead of google searching for things based on key word searches; actually examine the abstracts????

The not so universal tree of life or the place of ... [Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2009] - PubMed result

firstly it's combinaTORICS

secondly Orphan genes are nothing new in the evolution discourse

again from your own sources.



as your previous articles demonstrated the lack of phylogeneity amongst Simpler Organisms isn't due to their lack of relationship, but because they came about at a different evolutionary stage, as these stages changed they crystalized and started showing more distinct relationships and hence with higher order complex organisms we do find phylogeneity.

This is ALL from your sources. NOT MINE, YOURS!



http://mic.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/151/8/2499




again same as the other; all it's showing that bacterial evolution was not neatly parent-offspring, but often offspring-offspring. Nothing alarming. We have observed genetic exchanges between bacteria in different ways.

Doesn't debunk evolution just shows it's more complex.



Again Debating Darwin is not the same as debating the Modern Idea of Evolution. We've come a long way from Darwin.

again YOUR sources speaking when read more fully.





Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life

Sign in to read: Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - life - 21 January 2009 - New Scientist



again, read your sources







Please I feel that exposing how you misread and misunderstand your sources reinforces why Your Islamic version of Christian-Styled Creationism is a dead end.

I posted the Wikipedia article because it had references attached. Your Peer Reviewed articles do not reject evolution or that species came from other species but that certain aspects of their sequencing seem to come from lateral influences such as cladogenesis and infusion via germs/vriuses.

You're serving a weak counter rebuttal.



yeah how heretical of me , believing God can act through the forces of nature.
You can't be more awestruck than I am right now on how poorly you have an understanding of technical language and scientific literature

CAREFULLY read, it says MUTATIONS, your original argument was beneficial mutations. Mutations happen randomly of course, but BENEFICIAL mutations are NATURALLY selected that is if they suit the environment it helps the species/organism thrive and multiply.

Since you don't comprehend the material I'll quote and explain it for you




What it's saying is that when environments cause mutations; it doesnt say "hey genes, code something that will make this organism more capable to ensure and thrive with my stressors"; what it does is it causes the mutations, but acts like a sieve; where it essentially is saying (metaphorically of course) "ok lets select which organisms can survive by killing off the ones who dont have mutations which can endure our stressors"; this is how natural selection works.


any questions? Should I call this straw man or deliberate distortion of terminology?





I want to do so even more now than ever after this ill informed claim of comparing beneficial mutations with mutations in general.





with you always, I only mess around with goofy cult members like Qadiyanis and such.




Goodness
You're still misrepresenting the relationships between mutation and beneficial mutatiion. Let's put it this way No mutation is beneficial or detrimental until the environment or conditions an organism lives in either can be useful to the organism under those conditions or they're hurtful.

Yes Darwin's original theory has been debunked. Thank you for admitting that.
Except for "Natural Selection"? Oh, which is based on random mutations, which is the source of variation. Anyway...

Let me ask you this.

You keep saying that Nature picks out the traits that are beneficial to the species, but what is Nature?
Isn't Nature, the ecosystem, itself also subject to change? What we refer to nature here is it self ambiguous. I am not distorting terminology, but you seem to apply it very loosely to mean whatever you want it to mean.

The supposed theory proposes that rabbits run fast because it must escape foxes. Foxes Run fast because it must catch the fast rabbits. The slow rabbits die off, the slow foxes die off, but those rabbits that turned brown, and camouflaged with it's surroundings, by having a brown coat successfully evaded it's prey and that fox that had a brown coat and merged with it's surrouding was more successful. Isn't this circular logic?

And Secondly. How do you know what the environment was like millions and millions of years ago? How do you know the environment induced a higher rate of mutation? Isn't that speculation? What is your proof for that? Scientific proof.

Thirdly, can you give an example of a "beneficial mutation"?
If you are going to say that bacteria have developed immunity to antibiotics, then this is only an illusion. If the artificial stressor is removed, the colony will revert back to it's "natural" allelic frequency.

Point is that you don't have any proof of speciation! There is no evidence that enviornmental changes can induce a higher rate of mutation. If this was true, the rate of extinction on the planet would have teed off a long time ago. Go to Chernobyl, and see are there humans being born with beneficial mutations? In Afghanistan?

What you are doing is talking speculatively. I showed you the science, the meat, of the arguments. You cherry picked for those parts where the author had to reconcile the blatant difficulties that the new evidence showed. Viruses should be incorporated, but it is not. Indeed, there is no evidence at all for evolution.

I want you to post articles like the above about chimpanzees being similar to humans so we can see what "scientific" merit it has.

Con-artists who hijack religion and attempt to promote dogma for which they have no experimental basis for why things which go against their dogma are wrong will debate anything. This is nothing more than histrionics; They believe if they can act zealous about something their feigned sincerity will verify their merit. Nothing new.

apparently, they seem to think that Mufassireen are embodiments of God, na'audhibillah.

[/QUOTE]

I am hijacking religion? LOL
And what are you doing? Sanitizing it by using "Evolution Delusion 4.3"?

Mufasseeren are basing their tafsir on ahadith.. Hence they have the backing of the words of Muhammad sallallahu alihi wa salam. Where as you are trying to discredit them using bogus science.

And since you are diverging from the teachings of Muhammad Sallalahu Alihi wa salam, in truth, you are disobeying Allah. Because:


"And he who contends with the Messenger with opposing arguments after he has clearly sensed the spirit of truth guiding into all truth and follows a path other than that followed by those whose hearts have been touched with the divine hand and Providence their guide shall be a great loser. We will confirm him in the horrid purpose he has chosen for himself and will confix him to a dreadful conflagration. And evil indeed is the intended end." 4:115

Secondly, you committed shirk when you said:

Yeah how heretical of me , believing God can act through the forces of nature.

Nature doesn't have a "force".

This is what the pantheist actually believe. Even the Polytheist. That the Supreme being acts through the smaller dieties. Zues is god of gods.

We are strict MONOTHEISTS.
Tawheed or hellfire.
We do not ascribe any partners to Allah.
Especially not in creation.

You can go and speculate all you like if Maryam (aliha salam) was a virgin or not...but when it comes to the Power of Allah, He is Qadirun Ala Kuli Shay. So if He wants to create man out of Mud...or rock..or steel or even cow dung..He can do it. So if He says I created man from clay and breath life into Him. We hear and we obey.

You hear and obey dawkins and Carl Sagan and what your professors and the acadamic institution to which you have dedicated your life...fine. Don't come here and tell us that Islam should change so that you can conform to the consensus of your peers.

And I know what you are going to say. Just try to not to shoot for my character again, brah. You dun know me.

Salam.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Well I must hand it to you, at least you're attempting to seem scientifically learned, but still passing off tripe

your whole "see look they're just tailoring things to make it seem like the sequences match" argument made me chuckle. That's certainly not what they're doing, even according to your sources.

Your conspiracy theory of why they still endorse the evolutionary theory, even though they present in your eyes what's evidence which would challege evolution, is also extremely insane.

However, I will have to get back to this debate later in the week, for now I give you a vacation.

[Alchemist]

According to my sources?

dude...

it's the manual of the software it self.

Look at the way you are arguing with me...

"makes me chuckle" ..."i am giving you a vacation" ..."insane"..."conspiracy theory"...

"melodrama" ...." emotional"..."self aggrandizement" ....

PROJECTION!

Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person unconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, such as to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others have those feelings.[1]
Projection reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the unwanted unconscious impulses or desires without letting the conscious mind recognize them.
An example of this behavior might be blaming another for self failure. The mind may avoid the discomfort of consciously admitting personal faults by keeping those feelings unconscious, and by redirecting libidinal satisfaction by attaching, or "projecting," those same faults onto another person or object.

[ScimitarXEdge]

By the way THAT wasn't an argument, it seems like any casually remark or comment becomes apart of the debate for you. You're a goof.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Evolution is scientific fact.

as much as I hated your banning, the moderators and administration don't want you here, so I'm reporting your ID so that you can be deleted.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Little Ghaznichai, you will be surprised how many times I've been here with other names. Good luck.

well actually I want you here, but after Admin explained everything; I feel they're right for banning you.

otherwise you're the yin to my yang

[Da_Kunar_Ghro]

I do not believe in evolution.

[Alchemist]

By the way THAT wasn't an argument, it seems like any casually remark or comment becomes apart of the debate for you. You're a goof.

You don't have an argument.

You are frustrated so you've resorted to name calling like a child.
It would have been better if you just didn't say anything at all.


Obviously you and maseed are two sides of the same coin. I am glad you recongize that fact.

Also it is amusing to see how religiously you and your like believe in evolution without even knowing what it is but have grave doubts in regards to Al Khaliq.

Salam

p.s - don't bare your fangs at me again, man-child.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You don't have an argument.

You are frustrated so you've resorted to name calling like a child.
It would have been better if you just didn't say anything at all.


Obviously you and maseed are two sides of the same coin. I am glad you recongize that fact.

Also it is amusing to see how religiously you and your like believe in evolution without even knowing what it is but have grave doubts in regards to Al Khaliq.

Salam

p.s - don't bare your fangs at me again, man-child.

Haha name calling? You being a conspiracy theorist is name calling? I thought when you told me that Jews were behind every known evil in the world, that this was a conspiracy. but now I see how immature and childish that someone using conspiracy theories being called a conspiracy theorist is. Thanks for guiding me.


Oh yeah calling people heretics for not following some Man-Made perversion of Islam is much more adult.

Oh believe me I have a an argument, I just have tests so I can only give short replies for a few days.

[طالب]

Please elucidate a little here my learned PFers. Help me understand need for scientific evidence for Islam

is not religion a belief system? and isn't blind faith one of the axioms of a belief system, and placing this next to the scientific system, isn't empiricism (of Bacon) a basic tenet of the scientific method?
if the above two points hold true, then simple syllogism tells you that the two are mutually exclusive, that is you cannot examine faith by empirical evidence and vice versa, you cannot accept a scientific theory on blind faith

secondly a search for religious truth is not best served with scientifc method, which is inductive when drawing conclusions, and deductive in the process, the former (induction) clearly results in theories that can be falsified and verified by newer empirical evidence (Popper), leaving theories to develop.

i have so far placed my belief in islam by faith, i accept it, challenging the patently ridiculous ideas*, and leaving the core ideas on my absolute belief of quran and the most reliable of ahadeeth, supplemented with reason and logic, context and knowing as much as possible how arabic language has evolved.

i dont enter realms of investigating islam with tools of the scientific method; i find these blunt for the highest knowledge of deen.

opinions please.





*some one told me that Allah is noor, and seriously engaged on posibility wave-particle aspect of the creator, instead of examining the metaphor

Francis Bacon, the Empiricist
Karl Popper

My opinion is that I don't understand what on Earth you're on about.

Nobody has claimed that Islam has a need for scientific evidence. In fact nobody has ever claimed that Islam was scientific. The fact that Islam is a religion should provide a clue as to why.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural, therefore it can not provide evidence for many of the concepts in Islam. The most obvious being that there is but one God, Allah, and that he is above the natural, i.e. supernatural.

That's not what this debate is about though. The debate concerns whether or not Islam contradicts the scientific theory of evolution.