Evolution theory contradicts the Quran and Hadiths

[faye]

you keep repeating that as a mantra and avoid answering questions.lol

[ScimitarXEdge]

you keep repeating that as a mantra and avoid answering questions.lol

that answers your question, because we see that observable locci in gene, how they change and passed on to offspring. That's how your parents are your parents and not Allah(swt) spontaneously creating you when you were born.

Your argument thus is merely a blanket statement to ignore evidence.....you're in what they call denial Faye ....

[faye]

hmmmm. so allah has no involvement anymore? interesting.
do you have any observable proof of that?

[ScimitarXEdge]

I never said that, evolution is Allah(swt)s involvement.

[faye]

it's clever how you have put the qu'ran and the 'theory' of evolution together to give the 'theory' of evolution some soul. otherwise it would have none. no compassion, intelligence, conscience etc.
i don't know it's not true it's just that i don't believe it.
and i also don't know that other peoples theories of creation are not true. aboriginals have their theory about the rainbow serpent as their creator, for example. who are we to say that that is not how they experienced it?

[ScimitarXEdge]

hence what I was saying before Faye, you live a life of denial. I pity you that reality and the beauties of nature are such a threat to you.

[Alchemist]

Alchemist we have nearly 4 threads of Evidence which you just say "no no no lala la la lala la not true ..it's all a lie ...jewish conspiracy".

let me demonstrate what you'll do.

here is evidence of evolutionary relationship with other primates and evidence for the existence of common ancestor for modern primates.

PLoS Genetics: Genomic Relationships and Speciation Times of Human, Chimpanzee, and Gorilla Inferred from a Coalescent Hidden Markov Model

these are your predictable counter responses

a.) "what? a stochastic model? this is ad-hoc guess work"

( commentary :this one is the most absurd one I have heard from you, as a mathematician stochastic models are used in every day life, for example percentage of electrical charge transferring in a current, is modeled stochastically, and works, and uncertainty is much greater than these genetic models, yet it's all guess work after the fact?)

b.) "It's a conspiracy, the Zionists are manufacturing this evidence to attack religion"

c.) "baaah that's not evidence.....show me an actual transition!!! (changing goal posts)

You will deny evidence no matter what I show you.

You are a dumb ass...lol

That study is based on the presumption that evolution is true. Just like last time. I don't care about the formula used, it's what they plug into the formula that is of question...from the paper itself:

Data.

Chimpanzee–gorilla–orangutan sequence data from Targets 1 (Chromosome 7), 106 (Chromosome 20), 121 (Chromosome 2), and 122 (Chromosome 20) were obtained from the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center Web site (NISC - NIH Intramural Sequencing Center), and the corresponding human sequences were downloaded from GenBank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Genbank). For each target, sequences from the four species were aligned using the MAVID alignment software [34]. The resulting alignment was manually inspected, and columns corresponding to an insertion in orangutan were removed. Next, the alignment was subdivided in cases where more than 50 deletions were present in one of the species, and finally, alignment columns with gaps were removed. For the X-chromosome, the alignment used by [2] was downloaded and filtered for poorly aligned segments (more than five segregating sites in 20 base pair windows). Fine-scale (from HapMap data [24]) and region-wide (from pedigree data [25]) estimates of the recombination rate were downloaded from the University of California Santa Cruz genome browser (UCSC Genome Browser Home).

So basically, they were expecting to see alignment of genes and they put it in into formula that there should be a match according to the phyolgenetic tree.

The MAVID software?

The tree file specifies the phylogenetic relationship between the sequences
in the sequence file. A sequence is identified by the first word of its
FASTA line and so the FASTA lines for the different sequences must begin
with different words.

If the "-r" option is used, then after performing an initial alignment, each
sequence is pulled out of the alignment and realigned to the others with the
goal of fixing errors in the alignment. The "-c" option allows the user to
specify a file containing constraints on the alignment, i.e. regions in the
sequences which are already known to correspond to each other. Each line of
the constraint file should be of the form:

We've been over this already...but you are a fake intellectual.


You don't know what the paper is actually trying to accomplish, but the only thing you recognized was that it used the stochastic modal....but for what? You have no clue!

And this is suppose to be proof of evolution how?

Can you explain that?

Or you going to duck your tail between your legs again and say "Oh, I could have...but I didn't want to bother try because you wouldn't believe anyway".

then why are they showing observed examples of it happening?

Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

See, you claim to have some "basic" understanding but you don't.

Evolution means that a new trait will arise as a result of mutation that would confer the new species with an advantage over other competing species. In this experiment, the e coli that were able to transport Citerate across their membrane (Cit +) became less able at metablizing glucose than the Cit - strand. This means that if the Cit+ strand were to be released in to the wild they would return to being Cit - .
The interesting thing to note about this experiment is that it took place over 20 years, and 33000 generations and still no significantly able trait "evolved". Also, the experimentalists admit that contamination did occur in some instance, and that some e coli with the ability to transport Citrate were found in the wild anyway..so this doesn't shed anything. Rather, the purpose of this experiment was to deduce if given the same conditions, the same type of mutation could happen more than once. However, they still have not figured out how that mutation came about. They don't know if a dormant gene was re activated, or that an existing transporter was modified but they know well that that the ability did not happen due to a point mutation, and that it did not happen due to a series of mutations, because the phenomena was observed only between 100 to 200 generation time line, which gives a short window of time.

So over all, this does not prove evolution, because no new triats were evolved. This study has a long way to go still.

Darwin's assessment was more than 100 years ago; do you know how far evidence and research has come SINCE then? We now know that the protein sequences of Related Primates and Humans trace back to a common ancestor, something that Darwin did NOT know.

SOME may credit Darwin with getting the ball rolling, but we've come a long way from Darwin's initial arguments.

I don't care what you see as Science; because you're not even following the Qur'an's view of science according to what the Qur'an says


"We will show them Our Signs on the horizon and within themselves until it is clear to them that it is the truth", (Surah Fussilat, 53)

Even the Qur'an says to look to nature and aspects of nature to see God's signs; and you ignore it, so you're clearly not following the Qur'an.

The only people who are following Iblis are suicide bombers i.e. Taliban.

See, the one who is following iblis, is actually you. Why you would tie suicide bombing to this discussion is beyound me.

You misquote the Qur'an to validate evolution, when in fact there is no link between what the Qur'an says and what Darwin said.

The reason why you won't understand any of this is because you have too much unfounded pride. And people who have pride are followers of iblis.


You keep saying "genetic" markers, but I already proved to you that those genetic markers are not indicative of much since we can find alleles that are more dissimilar between humans and more similar to chimpanzees...for which if were to follow your logic would mean that some humans evolved into monkeys! You were too stupid to realize that when I explained it to you ... so stupid that you think that one nucleotide codes for one protein LOL

And now you are making another asinine statement:" now know that the protein sequences of Related Primates and Humans trace back to a common ancestor, something that Darwin did NOT know"

That is rather a stupid thing to say, because some proteins are common to all species, doesn't mean that we are all "descendents" of one super common ancestor that comprised ALL proteins! This is something that you assume...

However, you are so ignorant of evolution and what darwin actually proposed that you don't even know what his actual claim was - descent with modification. Meaning that whatever trait you acquired in your life time, could be passed down to your children. Mendalian genetics actually shot this premise of Darwin down when he proved that "Acquired traits" do not get inherited, the germ line is distinct and traits are assorted "independently". Which is why Darwinism isn't accepted anymore, and it had to be changed into "neo-darwinism" and such ad hoc theories as "punctuated equilibrium" had to be dreamed up of.


Yes, Allah tells us to look to His Creation for proof of His Power and Might, however, someone like you is unable to look to his proof because you are ignorant and too hard headed and narrow minded to appreciate the complexity of his creation.

When this debate becomes about the science of evolution...you start to sound like a 4th grader. And I seriously doubt that you have any proper education. I doubt you even go to a university. You hardly know of anything ...but are very good at shooting ambiguous statements devoid of any meaning. All pomp and show, no substance or real merit to what you say.


Lewany says there is a lot of evidence...so why bring such obscure experiments that have little to do with the theory of evolution, and more to do with a methodology based on post hoc assumptions.

Try again ...losers.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Ah yes as predicted ....you used the stochastic model scapegoat

a.) "what? a stochastic model? this is ad-hoc guess work"

..even when evidence is presented to you ....you simply scapegoat the research and data and create conspiracy theory babble of why the data it's faulty

so they used software which recognizes matching protein sequences.....that's what technology is supposed to do when you can't do stuff like that by hand.

and somehow you think frowning and wagging your finger at that fact means you found some flaw or inconsistency.

For everyone watching, basically what Alchemist is trying to argue here is that the scientists purposely forged the data and rigged the software to make it seem like it confirms evolution by assuming evolution is automatically true; which means that concocted an elaborate conspiracy to make it seem like the evidence confirm evolutionary predictions.

Notice everyone he hasn't actually debated ANY of the evidence itself? I mean look at what he says here

The interesting thing to note about this experiment is that it took place over 20 years, and 33000 generations and still no significantly able trait "evolved"

and what the article actually says

A citrate-using (Cit+) variant finally evolved in one population by 31,500 generations, causing an increase in population size and diversity. The long-delayed and unique evolution of this function might indicate the involvement of some extremely rare mutation. Alternately, it may involve an ordinary mutation, but one whose physical occurrence or phenotypic expression is contingent on prior mutations in that population. We tested these hypotheses in experiments that “replayed” evolution from different points in that population's history. We observed no Cit+ mutants among 8.4 × 1012 ancestral cells, nor among 9 × 1012 cells from 60 clones sampled in the first 15,000 generations. However, we observed a significantly greater tendency for later clones to evolve Cit+, .

is there any evidence that this guy ignore evidence and doesn't actually read what he's refuting by the fact he says the exact opposite of what the evidence says?

[faye]

hence what I was saying before Faye, you live a life of denial. I pity you that reality and the beauties of nature are such a threat to you.

/
so what observable facts drew you to this very delusional conclusion? i actually KNOW life and nature. you only KNOW ABOUT, life and nature. since it appears you have been inside a clasroom, the net and a lab for nearly half of your life i doubt that you have actually experienced much of the 'reality' of nature itself, dear boy
i live with death adders in a rainforest setting, a 5 min walk from the beach, swim in waters where there are sharks, box jellyfish, irikanji and the occasional crocodile, funnelweb spiders and snakes come in my house. i collect shells, some that can kill. so dear, i don't think i miss out on the beauties of nature nor find them a threat.
i suppose you might get the occassional cockroach in your domain.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Miscellaneous stuff so Alchemist doen't whine about being character attacked

See, the one who is following iblis, is actually you. Why you would tie suicide bombing to this discussion is beyound me.

actually the one who is following the Iblis is you, you were selling pork openly without any remorse or shame and serving the Infidels and arrogantly throwing disregard to the Laws of Allah(swt). every dollar your make is immoral and harram, THAT is following the Iblis, munafiq.

Why you would tie suicide bombing to this discussion is beyound me.

Pakistan2010 support suicide bombers who murder innocent Afghans that's what they have to do with it his comment about Iblis is more reflected in his ideas than others, even yours surprisingly.

That is rather a stupid thing to say, because some proteins are common to all species, doesn't mean that we are all "descendents" of one super common ancestor that comprised ALL proteins! This is something that you assume...

Numbnuts, not even close to what I said, we're talking about protein SEQUENCES, their loci and arrangement and combination. Much different than merely having the protein dimwit.

[faye]

pigs are close to us.

[ScimitarXEdge]

pigs are close to us.

well there' a reason for that, they hare a common ancestor somewhere down the line.

[faye]

of course we have...the creator, our mum and dad;-)

[ScimitarXEdge]

even more intermediary than what you mention, try mammals.

[ScimitarXEdge]

another interesting I noted from the portion that Alchemist quoted

Chimpanzee–gorilla–orangutan sequence data from Targets 1 (Chromosome 7), 106 (Chromosome 20), 121 (Chromosome 2), and 122 (Chromosome 20) were obtained from the NIH Intramural Sequencing Center Web site (NISC - NIH Intramural Sequencing Center), and the corresponding human sequences were downloaded from GenBank (GenBank Overview). For each target, sequences from the four species were aligned using the MAVID alignment software [34]. The resulting alignment was manually inspected, and columns corresponding to an insertion in orangutan were removed. Next, the alignment was subdivided in cases where more than 50 deletions were present in one of the species, and finally, alignment columns with gaps were removed. For the X-chromosome, the alignment used by [2] was downloaded and filtered for poorly aligned segments (more than five segregating sites in 20 base pair windows). Fine-scale (from HapMap data [24]) and region-wide (from pedigree data [25]) estimates of the recombination rate were downloaded from the University of California Santa Cruz genome browser (UCSC Genome Browser Home).

Basically contrary to what Alchemist is saying, they removed false correlations that the computer MAY make the data seem dishonestly close to make sure that the data was being recombined without a basis, hence the deletions done by the software were included and the data where the insertion of Orangutan DNA to fill up the gaps were removed.

If anything what this shows is how the researchers took every precaution to miminalize any biases in the study.

Any wonder the whiny C*ntrag who sells pork ignores the data itself and tries targeting the researchers?