Where Do We Come From?

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

So far the only plausible theory to provide rationale for the origin of not only human beings, but every other life form is the Biological Evolution theory.And there is plenty of genetic and palentologic evidence available to support this theory unlike the lame attempts made by the proponents of the Creationism.
If you have already concluded before the start of the debate that everything owes its existence to God, then there is no point of discussing it.
However, I would still like to know that if God has created everything, then who created God?

Bingo, right on the money. Infinite regress. No one can get across this. However, the difference is that while one group tries to logically answer this question, the other group makes up for the lack of clarity with magic and fairy tales.

That is a theory created by jews. Since Allah turned some of them into apes. They want everyone to accept them :D

Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Hugo de Vries were agnostics, atheists or deists. Moreover, the theory of evolution goes exactly against the chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament (Torah) so why would Jews make up myths that would destroy their own religion? Oh wait, they came up with the theory to destroy Islam because Islam is a real threat to them. Okay.....

LOL how could stone statues do anything? LOL

I am definitely saving this comment lol

"There are no such thing as stupid questions. Only stupid people." LOL

There are two possibilities here. You either deliberately misunderstood her post..... or you really didn't get it, which would be very unfortunate.

[MazloomyarMaseed]

Lets forget where we all came from and worry more if our future generations get to say where we all came from as we are all killing ourselves for no apparant reason.

Its very easy to blaime Jews for everything but i find it hipocritical of these Muslims who not blaime Jews for their invetions and cures for many diseases.

Kind Regards

[inqilab]

Charles Darwin, Alfred Russel Wallace, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Hugo de Vries were agnostics, atheists or deists. Moreover, the theory of evolution goes exactly against the chapter of Genesis in the Old Testament (Torah) so why would Jews make up myths that would destroy their own religion? Oh wait, they came up with the theory to destroy Islam because Islam is a real threat to them. Okay.....

I was joking.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

I was joking.

hehehehe xD lol

xoxoooxoxox


(This is my missafghanprincess impersonation).

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

Thank you fot the detailed answer but I know that evolution says we have a common ancestor and we didn't evolve from apes.

having similar DNA is not a good argument because what we have in common with apes 98% DNA is not important, What is important is that 2% which sets us apart. I am not very well versed in evolution when it gets too technical.

I wish Rawanshenas was here. He would set some of you evolutionists straight, lol.

Timbaktu, why do you think our genome is 97% the same as chimpanzees while it has fewer similarities when it comes to further away living creatures such as reptiles and plants?

I'm not an evolutionist. Are you a Newtonist? Or Copernicusist? No matter what you believe, gravity will hold you down (even if you deny its existence) and the earth will go around the sun even if you're an anti-Copernicusist. In the same way, living creatures will continue to adapt to their living environments, constantly self-correcting and improving themselves in the process regardless of whether we accept that fact or not.

[Roshina]

having similar DNA is not a good argument because what we have in common with apes 98% DNA is not important, What is important is that 2% which sets us apart. I am not very well versed in evolution when it gets too technical.

How is it not important?

And what's with Chimpanzees and some of us denying the fact that we have such an important factor in common with them and share over 98% DNA with them? . . . Why is the 2% more important? :O I mean, 2% is nothing compared to the 98%. And so what that that sets us apart? No one has said we ARE monkeys.

[inqilab]

If one wants to believe in a theory. That says humans share a same ancestor as apes. It would be more appropriate to say. That we are created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. hence going back to my first post.

[inqilab]

And honestly. Whenever comparisons are made. Like the intermediate species between apes and humans. Ar ein fact human after all. And not ape. Like genus australopithecus and genus homo.

[inqilab]

How is it not important?

And what's with Chimpanzees and some of us denying the fact that we have such an important factor in common with them and share over 98% DNA with them? . . . Why is the 2% more important? :O I mean, 2% is nothing compared to the 98%. And so what that that sets us apart? No one has said we ARE monkeys.

Just to note. There is no 98% similarity between human and chimp dna. Not even two brothers will have less then 98% similarity. Except for identical twins.

And the 98% similarity is not with dna. It is with karyotypes. If you know what karyotypes are then you will know. it is not really dna.

[PFgulalai]

FYI. 98% simliraity is in the 'junk DNA' regions which are the parts of DNA that do not code for any protein or else biolgically important molecule.HOEWEVER, it is the very JUNK DNA that stores important evolutionary data (heterochromatic regions of chromosomes) including the ANCIENT retroviral sequences, which help us in analysing the information stored in the DNA during phylogenetic analysis.
The 2% DNA is what makes us unique as human and them as Chimps.
All humans are 99.9% similar.Yet it is the 0.1% difference that makes each human unique due to the single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the genes.

Thank you fot the detailed answer but I know that evolution says we have a common ancestor and we didn't evolve from apes.

having similar DNA is not a good argument because what we have in common with apes 98% DNA is not important, What is important is that 2% which sets us apart. I am not very well versed in evolution when it gets too technical.

I wish Rawanshenas was here. He would set some of you evolutionists straight, lol.

[Palwasha]

Charles Darwin himself doubted his own theory, and there was no one who knew it better, what does that tell you..

Are we anything like mice? ..Hardly, yet we have over 85% (ish) of similar DNA. So when someone tells me we share over 90% of the same DNA with apes, in my eyes it means nothing.

Lets forget where we all came from and worry more if our future generations get to say where we all came from as we are all killing ourselves for no apparant reason.

Its very easy to blaime Jews for everything but i find it hipocritical of these Muslims who not blaime Jews for their invetions and cures for many diseases.

Kind Regards

Yup, lets blame the Arabs instead.

[PFgulalai]

Just to note. There is no 98% similarity between human and chimp dna. Not even two brothers will have less then 98% similarity. Except for identical twins.

FYI.There are two types of Chimpanzees: the common chimp. and the Bonobo. It depends which DNA are you going to use for sequencing. The consistent estimation in the scientific circle has remained 97% with some scientists going up to 98% and some below 96% depending upon their sequencing software and technology/equipment.
All humans, at the DNA level, are 99.9% similar.Identical twins are 100% similar genetically but have variations epigenetically.

And the 98% similarity is not with dna. It is with karyotypes. If you know what karyotypes are then you will know. it is not really dna.

LOL!!
MORE FYIs!

Karyotype is the total chromosomal complement of an individual.
All chromosomes are made up of DNA which has 3.6 billions base pairs in every single cell of the ~50 trillion cells of a human body!
Similarity, called Homology, is detected at the DNA level, not at the Chromosomal level.
We look at the individual A, T, C, G bases (3.6 billion!) in the DNA from a single cell of every human for detecting similarity and differences.

Now you tell me why you think there is no god in those statues?

[Roshina]

If one wants to believe in a theory. That says humans share a same ancestor as apes. It would be more appropriate to say. That we are created by the same creator rather then evolved out of the same specie. hence going back to my first post.

My dear brother, I cannot believe you just said that! Here's why.

Firstly, a theory is not the same as a belief based on something a religious text says. A theory is something that is based on evidence and can be tested over and over and over to give results that match the hypotheses made regarding it.

Secondly, in your post above, you're hinting at the idea that belief in God is a theory. But the belief that God exists is not a theory because it cannot be tested, and there are no hypotheses involved. A theory can be shown wrong by experiments, just as it can be shown correct. But, as of July 2010, we have no way of proving/showing God's existence.

Thirdly, that humans are created by the same creator who has created everything else is a religious belief that science has nothing to do with. Science cannot prove that, and there's nothing anyone can do to prove that we were created by anyone or anything, whether the same Creator all along or not.

Fourthly, what if someone doesn't wanna believe in any theory? Would your statement that "it'd be more appropriate to say we are all created by the same creator" still apply? (Of course it would. But I'm just showing you why your condition that "if someone wants to believe in a theory" is wrong.)

So I suggest you keep that away from it, since it has nothing to do with the discussion of evolution. Evolution does not deny God's existence; however, evolutionists may deny God's existence, just as those who don't even believe in evolution may as well. At the same time, many who believe in or support evolution believe in God, just as many who don't believe in evolution believe in God.

[Roshina]

Charles Darwin himself doubted his own theory, and there was no one who knew it better, what does that tell you..

It doesn't tell me anything. When he first came up with the idea, the entire world hated him. Very few individuals agreed with him, or were willing to understand the process and concept of evolution.

At that time, we didn't have many convenient ways of testing the theory of evolution (again, it's not even "just" a theory anymore; most scientists agree that there's so much evidence of it that it's actually a fact. I'm hopeful that in the next decade or so, it'll be accepted as a fact in science textbooks and not be called a "theory" anymore so that creationists won't be able to say, "Well, it's JUST a theory!" The "just" is always funny.). Now, however, we have many more ways of testing and observing it, and so we can say that although Darwin may not have been 100% sure of his ideas, we today are, and the future generations will have even more evidence.

So at that time, no one may have known it better (actually, there is evidence that others had discussed and published info on evolution before Darwin, so Darwin wasn't the first human on earth to talk about evolution or to offer info about it), but scientists today understand it much better than Darwin himself may have.

[PFgulalai]

Charles Darwin himself doubted his own theory, and there was no one who knew it better, what does that tell you..

Charles Darwin did not doubt his theory in his lifetime. This is one the several misleading interpretations done by the Creationists who have no other job than to target some "missing links" in the scientific knowledge and make that as the point of their argument and then will absolutely fall in love with their misinterpretation and be adamant about it.
However, science's aim is to gain knowledge and knowledge is not stagnant but evolves progressively on the foundations of facts and evidence unlike divine beliefs.

Two-step process of claiming that Darwin doubted his theory:

Example: In the Chapter 6 of revered book "On the Origin of Species", Darwin anticipated that certain findings might not hold turth in future (statement 1) and then predicts the mechanism through which the relevant fact could be discovered. But a typical creationist attitude is to talk about statement 1 and hide statement 2, thus making it sound like as if Darwin was doubting his theory (for more information, you can read his book).

what does that tell you..

.....that tells me that creationits are dishonest fella.

Are we anything like mice? ..Hardly, yet we have over 85% (ish) of similar DNA. So when someone tells me we share over 90% of the same DNA with apes, in my eyes it means nothing.

Yup, lets blame the Arabs instead.

In your eyes it might mean nothing.But ask the patients suffering from deadly diseases such as cancer, diabetes, hepatitis, genetic disorders and multiple infectious diseases to know the value of 85% (err.. 97% similarity) or 90% or 10%...

Ever heard of the mouse wonders in the holy kingdom of science? You need to go and find how scientists have used the same 97% similarity to provide the therapeutic care--Her2/ Trastuzumab for breast cancer through using mouse genetic models. Killing 560,000 women/year, breast cancer is the fifth most common cause of death from cancer. This is just one example.

Now you tell me does it still means nothing in your eyes?