Evolution and Pashtun nationalism...

[akbarkhan]

If human beings descend from a common ancestry through evolution then what is the point of nationalism? As in, if your forefathers were monkeys, were they Pashtun monkeys or just monkeys? If they were all just monkeys then how logical is the idea of monkey nationalism?

This is a genuine question, if you have constructive input please contribute else find another discussion.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

.

[Roshina]

Firstly, Akbar Khan, you contradict yourself in your first two sentences: Yes, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, but humans did NOT evolve FROM monkeys. Note the difference.

Secondly, if you are wondering how a person can be a nationalist when that same person is the same human as all other humans, here's my response.

I devoted some three years of my life to this question, exploring the concept of identity and the many forms it comes in -- e.g., ethnic, national, religious, social. The three monotheistic religions tell us that the parents of all humans are Adam and Eve. (Understand that this does not necessarily contradict evolution or vice versa -- but that's another explanation for another time.) Logic tells us that all humans, wherever they come from and through whatever way, all lived in one particular spot of the world and then, as they increased in number, they started to disperse, traveling different parts of the world and settling in the places they found comfortable, we conjecture; the original inhabitants of any given land, then, are the people who FIRST settled on that land. And rarely can we figure this out -- that is, who lived where first? Interestingly enough, science and archeology tell us that it's more than likely that the first humans lived somewhere in or near Africa.

Now, since that's the case and no one can claim that all humans originated in different parts of the world at the same time, what is the need for ethnic/racial labels like Pashtun, Kurdish, etc., right? Easy: Depending on which land you end up settling in, your features, beliefs, experiences, etc., will be different than everyone else's in most cases. You discover means of communication amongst the other members of your community. So, while all humans were of perhaps ONE ethnicity or race, whatever that may have been, they have evolved now physically, socially, culturally, such that they're not the same people anymore (but still human). Evidence? The millions of different languages, customs, beliefs, and everything else associated with humans.

Moreover, having titles, of whatever kind, give us a sense of identity. When you tell someone you're a Muslim, it means something; it says something about you as a person, something about your practices and way of life. When you tell someone you're Pashtun, it does the same thing -- along with adding in which part of the world your people must be living in. So, as humans, we need these labels so that we can form communities and better associate with other people around us.

Since nationalism doesn't teach that my race/culture/values/etc. are superior to yours or vice versa and the evolution of humans from the first spot of the world where they must have come from to where all they live today doesn't in any way claim that all humans are the same or one, nationalism and evolution are two discrete entities. Sure, we're all one in that we're humans and have the same origin, whatever that must have been, but that doesn't in any way negate the fact that we all live different lifestyles today and live in different parts of the world. So I'm a Pashtun, and they're a priority for me because I share the most visible, most important similarities, ideas, thoughts, etc. with them. Obviously, I'm not every other ethnicity at the same time, so I can't speak for them all. That doesn't mean, of course, that I wouldn't wish them well or want them to have freedom from oppression if they're suffering, but it just means that, as a Pashtun nationalist, I want Pashtuns to be free from the rules of a people who don't respect, understand, appreciate, and/or practice our culture/language/etc.

Your argument, then, would have made some sense a few thousand years ago, but it doesn't make sense today.

[شمله ور خراساني]

If human beings descend from a common ancestry through evolution then what is the point of nationalism? As in, if your forefathers were monkeys, were they Pashtun monkeys or just monkeys? If they were all just monkeys then how logical is the idea of monkey nationalism?

This is a genuine question, if you have constructive input please contribute else find another discussion.

Listen you, mister! You are so wrong. You don't know a thing about evolution theory. Why do you Mullah's keep mixing up science?

Pashtuns are not made from monkeys. Pashtuns are made from more noble type of Chimps. We are not related to baboons. We are related to the nobility of the apes. The Bonobo's and Chimps. And some of us are closely related to Gorilla's. This is why Pashtuns are taller and stronger than others.

Please stay in your Islamic section where you can memorize quran and hadith. Leave science to educated Pashtun Nationalists.


Black people are made from monkeys. And Arabs are related to black people, so they are monkeys too. And you Mullah's love Arabs. So you are monkeys too. We are not. We are noble Bonobo apes. Who profess free love. Because we are Marxists. And we don't believe in money. We believe in bartering in natura.

[Baygham]

Listen you, mister! You are so wrong. You don't know a thing about evolution theory. Why do you Mullah's keep mixing up science?

Pashtuns are not made from monkeys. Pashtuns are made from more noble type of Chimps. We are not related to baboons. We are related to the nobility of the apes. The Bonobo's and Chimps. And some of us are closely related to Gorilla's. This is why Pashtuns are taller and stronger than others.

Please stay in your Islamic section where you can memorize quran and hadith. Leave science to educated Pashtun Nationalists.


Black people are made from monkeys. And Arabs are related to black people, so they are monkeys too. And you Mullah's love Arabs. So you are monkeys too. We are not. We are noble Bonobo apes. Who profess free love. Because we are Marxists. And we don't believe in money. We believe in bartering in natura.

You finally got it. Congragulations.
the mullas insisted it was Khaled bin waleed, but according to the above definition that would he a baboon/ape. Now I am confused. We are descendants of chimps and we worship a baboon god. I have been telling you guys it does not make sense.

[..]

Ummm a sense of Nationalism? Coming originally from America, then naturally I look at my ancestors. My ancestors came from Wales, so would this make me Welsh? I think I am maybe typical for my generation, a traveler, or vagabond. Correct me if I am mistaken, but is not Kochi the word for gypsy? I have always been very interested in other cultures. I do not know if I have anything in common with Pashtuns, but my need to understand this people is strong. Why? I have met some Pashtuns who have treated me better than anyone in my life has ever treated me. Perhaps this person is a Saint, I do not know, I only know that I long to understand more.

Rabia

[شمله ور خراساني]

Ummm a sense of Nationalism? Coming originally from America, then naturally I look at my ancestors. My ancestors came from Wales, so would this make me Welsh? I think I am maybe typical for my generation, a traveler, or vagabond. Correct me if I am mistaken, but is not Kochi the word for gypsy? I have always been very interested in other cultures. I do not know if I have anything in common with Pashtuns, but my need to understand this people is strong. Why? I have met some Pashtuns who have treated me better than anyone in my life has ever treated me. Perhaps this person is a Saint, I do not know, I only know that I long to understand more.

Rabia

Kochi means nomad. Not gypsy. And most Pashtuns are by origin semi-nomadic tribes.

And ignore the Nationalists on this forum if you want to learn about Pashtuns.

Because the most outspoken Pashtun Nationalists on this forum are atheists and people who have made numerous threads where they have insulted Islam and muslims.

They consider all non-Pashtuns as inferior people.

[شمله ور خراساني]

You finally got it. Congragulations.
the mullas insisted it was Khaled bin waleed, but according to the above definition that would he a baboon/ape. Now I am confused. We are descendants of chimps and we worship a baboon god. I have been telling you guys it does not make sense.

the mullah's who claim we descend from Khalid ibn Walid are likewise Nationalists. Because they want to link Pashtuns to prophets and companions.

[..]

Kochi means nomad. Not gypsy. And most Pashtuns are by origin semi-nomadic tribes.

And ignore the Nationalists on this forum if you want to learn about Pashtuns.

Because the most outspoken Pashtun Nationalists on this forum are atheists and people who have made numerous threads where they have insulted Islam and muslims.

They consider all non-Pashtuns as inferior people.

I know who I am, and I know I am loved by Allah, that is really all that matters. On the other hand, I think it is natural to look down on someone who is vividly different. For example I especially feel close to people who know how to reflect, who reason, but not all have this ability, so although it may be wrong, I may still look down on someone who is either narrow-minded, or unable to look critically at him/herself. I think the purpose of life is to grow closer to Allah and our beloved Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), to learn from those who reflect goodness. I have more resonance with Love and Forgiveness than with hate and revenge.

Rabia

[akbarkhan]

Firstly, Akbar Khan, you contradict yourself in your first two sentences: Yes, humans share a common ancestor with monkeys, but humans did NOT evolve FROM monkeys. Note the difference.

Your argument, then, would have made some sense a few thousand years ago, but it doesn't make sense today.

Girlie,

Looks like you have wasted 3 year of your life over a 'theory', a theory is not fact.

The theory of evolution relies on physical manifestation of organisms also known as the phenotype, we all understand that certain types of mutation can alter organism on the phenotype level. However, it is totally unscientific to state that organisms can simply evolute and permutate on the genotype level - there is not empirical evidence on this using the scientific method!

Lets take proteins for example, they contain unit of amino acids arranged in calculated quantities, structures and most important of all in particular sequences. Only one single misplaced amind acid in the map sequence can render it totally useless!

Now given that you have spent 3 years of your life studying the theory evolution then you should know how multi dimensional array and sequences functions in genetic code. Lets create an new unit in an existing genetic array i.e 2 cell organism. We will then push the new unit to a random index in the array and see the outcome.

private void addGenes(Gene a_gene) {
Gene[] genes = new Gene[m_geneArray.length + 1];
life.arraycopy(m_geneArray, 0, genes, 0, m_geneArray.length);
genes[m_geneArray.length] = a_gene;
m_geneArray = genes;
}

private void alleleMethod(a_superAllele) {
if (m_geneArray.length < 1) {

return;
}
Object[] a = (Object[]) a_superAllele;
if (a.length != m_geneArray.length) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Record length, " + a.length
+ " not equal to "
+ m_genes.length);
}
for (int i = 0; i < m_genes.length; i++) {
m_genes[i].setAllele(a[i]);
}
}

private void randomMutation(final int a_index, final double a_percentage) {

if (a_index < m_immutableVector.length) {
if (m_immutableVector[a_index] != null) {
synchronized (m_immutableVector) {
if (m_immutableVector[a_index].contains(this)) {
return;
}
}
}
}

Can you not see how nonsensical the theory of evolution is in genotype level? If you can't and I am sure you can't then you learn the basics of this and this and the correlation thereof!

[Roshina]

Girlie,

Excuse me? Learn to discuss before you even THINK about indulging in a discussion, k? We don't do "girlie" "boyie" etc. in discussions. Otherwise, I'm quite skilled at putting so-called "scholars" like you in their place.

Looks like you have wasted 3 year of your life over a 'theory', a theory is not fact.

First, your post barely addresses a point I made about evolution. If you wanna learn about it, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but we've already got several threads open for discussions on evolution, so no need for repetition. Here are some links:

~ http://www.pashtunforums.com/science...hes-both-4120/
~ http://www.pashtunforums.com/religio...-we-come-3615/

... Can't find the others, but there are more.

Anyway, if you had read my post even barely, you'd have seen that I said:

I devoted some three years of my life to this question, exploring the concept of identity and the many forms it comes in -- e.g., ethnic, national, religious, social.

Yet, your message says:

Looks like you have wasted 3 year of your life over a 'theory',

The rest of your post does not deserve a response from me. Now, if you'd either kindly go back to read what I said -- on IDENTITY, not on the "theory" of EVOLUTION (omg, there's no similarity between the two ), ... yeah. But, why, yes, I have dedicated several years of my life to the FACT of evolution And I'm still studying it just because I find it so common-sense.

[akbarkhan]

The rest of your post does not deserve a response from me. Now, if you'd either kindly go back to read what I said -- on IDENTITY, not on the "theory" of EVOLUTION (omg, there's no similarity between the two ), ... yeah. But, why, yes, I have dedicated several years of my life to the FACT of evolution And I'm still studying it just because I find it so common-sense.

You can not address the latter part of my post because you don't understand the algorithms that make up the human genome. Secondly, if you were an actual scientist then you would never call Darwin's theory a 'fact' - your father figure Richard Dawkins wouldn't approve of that kind of terminology because it goes against all scientific ethos.

Common sense is very uncommon, you make a good example for that. Now since you claim to have dedicated several years of your life then it should be very easy for you debunk the algorithm that I have posted in my previous response, however, if you live in a little fantasy world of great pretenders then you will avoid doing so because you simply can not compute it.

As far as identity is concerned, those of you who are staunch nationalist and are voicing for Darwinism need to understand one simple scientific fact. If you are the product of evolution, meaning you evoluted from single cell organisms, then, nationalism in your case is an epistemological fallacy because identity, culture, moral and natural disposition of human beings are not scientific operators/parameters.

The theory of evolution can not explain the phenomenon of identity, morals and natural disposition. To give an quick example, lets suppose you were raped (Allah swt forbid) by another human being, why should that human being be held accountable for an act of coitus that all other animate beings (products of evolution) are not held accountable for? Based on which scientific fact can you argue that the act of forced coitus is wrong in world where only the strong survive? After all, according to theory of evolution dogs too have evoluted from single cell organisms and they do rape other dogs, no one seems to have a problem with that!

The bottom line is, either stick to nationalism or darwinism because they are not scientifically palatable.

[akbarkhan]

If all our forefathers were the same, aren't Pashtuns the same as other human beings? Why be nationalistic when we have share a common descent with Punjabis and Farsis?

That is exactly the point I am trying to make! Nationlism is a farce in both cases.

[Roshina]

Akbarkhan Gula, for someone with such a lacking background in science, of course you'd think that evolution doesn't make any sense. You haven't even defined evolution, remember? And your first two sentences in your first post tell us you don't know what it is because, like the average human who doesn't know much science or biology, you believe that evolution teaches that we came form monkeys. Ask any evolutionist, biologist, or any other kind of scientist and tell me which one tells you that that's what evolution teaches. In fact, that's the most common misconception about evolution -- which most scientists now consider a FACT, by the way, because we have too much evidence for it to be "just" a theory. Even if it were "just" a theory, it's the closest thing to a fact and it becomes a fact with much glaring evidence -- as in the case of evolution. Keep up with science, will ya :D

You still have not made a convincing argument regarding the nexus between evolution and nationalism; I wait patiently for you to explain how, with over 6 billion people in the world, you expect us to understand your comment that the two first humans can be compared to the 6+ billion humans scattered ALL over the world today. That's just like when some anti-nationalist Pukhtuns say, "We need to unite the MUSLIMS, not the PASHTUNS! Our ethnicity doesn't mater; what matters is our religion." I mean, yo, how do you expect to unite over a billion people when you can't even unite some 60 million people?

[Baygham]

You can not address the latter part of my post because you don't understand the algorithms that make up the human genome. Secondly, if you were an actual scientist then you would never call Darwin's theory a 'fact' - your father figure Richard Dawkins wouldn't approve of that kind of terminology because it goes against all scientific ethos.

Common sense is very uncommon, you make a good example for that. Now since you claim to have dedicated several years of your life then it should be very easy for you debunk the algorithm that I have posted in my previous response, however, if you live in a little fantasy world of great pretenders then you will avoid doing so because you simply can not compute it.

As far as identity is concerned, those of you who are staunch nationalist and are voicing for Darwinism need to understand one simple scientific fact. If you are the product of evolution, meaning you evoluted from single cell organisms, then, nationalism in your case is an epistemological fallacy because identity, culture, moral and natural disposition of human beings are not scientific operators/parameters.

The theory of evolution can not explain the phenomenon of identity, morals and natural disposition. To give an quick example, lets suppose you were raped (Allah swt forbid) by another human being, why should that human being be held accountable for an act of coitus that all other animate beings (products of evolution) are not held accountable for? Based on which scientific fact can you argue that the act of forced coitus is wrong in world where only the strong survive? After all, according to theory of evolution dogs too have evoluted from single cell organisms and they do rape other dogs, no one seems to have a problem with that!

The bottom line is, either stick to nationalism or darwinism because they are not scientifically palatable.

wrora, that is some pathetic discourse above. Rape and dog sex. Which mexican brothel did you visit on tableegh.

The theory of evolution, is a scientific theory, based on fossil records. That means it predicts survival of the fittest over geological times (thousands of years for traits that are saved in fossils). Genetic studies show similar trends but is not available over long enough time to call it a done deal. Now if you want to apply that to the fluctuations of the stock market on a day to day basis, or why you have much fewer neurons compared to Qrrantugai, than that is your stupidity not the theory's.

The human genome has no fancy god proving algorithms, so stop yapping about algorithms. If we share 97% of our genome with a dog, so what. If it was 99.9% or 9% a human would still be human and a dog, dog.