Evolution, why us?

[KhyberKhan]

That's good, i don't believe that's evolution though. Maybe development due to genetic differences? When you said evolution i thought you meant changing species etc which worried me.

Remember Allah created our father Adam (AS) with his own two hands.

[sahil112]

That's good, i don't believe that's evolution though. Maybe development due to genetic differences? When you said evolution i thought you meant changing species etc which worried me.

Remember Allah created our father Adam (AS) with his own two hands.

lol that would worry me also ahah

but hmm genetic differences, what do you mean by that?
and ameen

[طالب]

no i belive that allah made us and then after that we started our evolution and now we have ended where we are now but still evolving some more than others

That includes the theory of common ancestry.

[sahil112]

That includes the theory of common ancestry.

dosnt the common ancestory say that we evolved from a single organsim or something?

[طالب]

dosnt the common ancestory say that we evolved from a single organsim or something?

Yeah, you said: "allah made us and then after that we started our evolution". So I take it you believe that we evolved from other animals. If you don't believe that, please state at which point in time we were created and if we were created in a final state.

[KhyberKhan]

lol that would worry me also ahah

but hmm genetic differences, what do you mean by that?
and ameen

Throughout history, different dynasties had different social approaches which formed the development of their race. For example the spartans, use to push the composition of the genepool so that males were strong, militaristic and were groomed for battle. So much so, that they'd pick certain males at birth and kill what they considered the weak. Now a few generations on, you're going to end up with almost a platoon of beefed up, skilled, killing machines who only bred with the finest of their own women.

On the other hand, you have the likes of genghis khan who pretty much raped his way through Eurasia leaving behind a bunch of all sorts

[sahil112]

Throughout history, different dynasties had different social approaches which formed the devlopment of their race. For example the spartans, use to push the composition of the genepool so that males were strong, militaristic and were groomed for battle. So much so, that they'd pick certain males at birth and kill what they considered the weak. Now a few generations on, you're going to end up with almost a platoon of beefed up, skilled, killing machines who only bred with the finest of their own women.

On the other hand, you have the likes of genghis khan who pretty much raped his way through Eurasia leaving behind a bunch of all sorts.

ah manana wrora

[Midnight_Sun]

darwin theorized and thats all that is.

i know he was not 100% which means he was WRONG.

So if you get 80% correct on an exam, that person automatically is wrong 100% of the time? Do you live up to your own belief of being 100% correct 100% of the time? Darwin never claimed nor wanted to replace religion. There are bigoted athiests who have used evolution as a means to progress their racist views, but most of the advancements in evolutionary biology, physics, were done by God believing people.

there is no accusation i made ,ok,just follow the trail of human beings migrating after becoming human from monkey from africa.

I apologize for the incoherent argument that I am about to make with you, I am running short on time, and have not had a chance to edit this. I will give you examples of intermediary species when I have more time. But for now take this food for thought:

So where did Dinosaurs come from? Did their bones which have been in the ground for over 100 Million years, just come down from a magical space ship? What about the fossil fuels that power your sub station which is giving power to your computer? Did fossil fuels just magically appear in the ground for you to come across? What about that yummy chicken you ate a few weeks ago, even though their cartilaginous properties are very similar to the cartilaginous cells in a Tyrannosaur? As for intermediary species, look at the whale. It's ancestor's walked on all four, and grew up in the shallow Tethys sea (roughly where Afghanistan and Pakistan are today). They are mammals like the landi or beef, or goat that you probably have consumed.

Yes I do believe humans came from more primitive ancestors. Monkeys of today? Hardly. First of all, did you know the oldest human bone is roughly 150,000 years old? How old is Mohammed (SAW) Islamic history? 1500 + - ? If you want to be picky and say Human civilization, the oldest is what? 10,000 years old? What happened in the first 140,000 years? Human knowledge grows exponentially. Compare the scientific knowledge of Muslims in the 8th century in regards to what we know now about technology, the cosmos, and our own Earth today? Now compare that knowledge to what archaeologists have found in the caves in France? See the difference?

My point is the world is really REALLY old, and what is time for God? Nothing? How hard would it be for God to create the universe, time, and over 1 Billion years of living biology? Evolution isn't an answer to the WHY we are here, it is a solution on HOW we and every living creature on this world continue to thrive on this planet. Some choose to ignore how life has survived on this planet for nearly a billion years and many accept God and choose to understand the world we live in and how fragile it is. That is all.

[Alchemist]

This thread needs the expertise of Alchemist, he seems to be familiar with evolution theory and its loop holes.

I've debated it so much that it bores me now ... lol

let them believe what they want to believe.

At the end of the day, its not a science. It is a myth.

The neat thing about evolution is that it can't be tested in a lab. According to the theory it takes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years ...and we have apparently evolved only a few seconds ago...so we'll have to wait for another million years to see if it is true.


It's a fairy tale at best. Even expert evolutionary scientists are not in concensus...they are always debating and fighting with each other. There is a war between them...

You don't have this problem in Physics. All physicts agree on the established laws of the universe - e = mc^2 ...even if quantum mechanic's get's murky, the probability wave function is still a valid formula. The same can't be said about evolution. It's all abstracted theories ..upon further abstractions. This is inherintly a simple theory because the proposed mechanism of evolution is A to B to C to D...but reality is a lot more complex. The function of a simple cell does not flow in such a linear and simplified manner. Indeed, the complexity of protein structures defies all mathematical probabilities.

Its also for the fact that biology is still entwined more language than it is with science. Take the word "Mutation" for example. If a biologist wants to study the effects of losing gene Z...he induces a mutation by subjecting the cell to carcinogenics or toxins or radiation. However, evolution says that mutation is the driving foce behind natural selection. If this is true, why isn't one of the million fruitflies or mice that undergo knock out experiments "evolving" ...rather they are always showing defects. Another weak exampe that evolutionsts like to give is "viruses building tolerance to antibiotics". Again, this is only an illusion. If the stressor, antibiotics, is removed from the equation, the population of viruses will return to the previous equilibrium. So really, its not an "evolution" per say ...but what is called a "bottle neck" effect..where certain types are killed so other types strive and florish. But under normal conditions it will return back to it's original state.

There is a lot of loop holes as you ...

But as you can see from leevanay's post. Evolution is mostly used to validate social darwinist theories that dominated the intelligensia of the whites in the early 20th century, late 19th century. They were busy measuring skull sizes and brain sizes trying to prove that whites had bigger brains than blacks and mongols and therefore were more superior to the rest. It also validate economic theories, such as those espoused by Adam Smith...and even the current fiasco...on the pretext of "survival of the fittest" which is a term originally coined by Adam Smith but later adopted by Darwinists. Also Karl Marx's book "Das kapital" was dedicated to Charles Darwin, on account of how his materialistic view supported Karl's view. And as you can see from leevanay's avatar...he is a marxist. Not a biologist. Which is why I didn't bother to click on this thread ...until I saw that I had posted on every other section of the forum and ...bored...blah!


any questions?

[Admin Khan]

I've debated it so much that it bores me now ... lol

let them believe what they want to believe.

At the end of the day, its not a science. It is a myth.

The neat thing about evolution is that it can't be tested in a lab. According to the theory it takes MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of years ...and we have apparently evolved only a few seconds ago...so we'll have to wait for another million years to see if it is true.


It's a fairy tale at best. Even expert evolutionary scientists are not in concensus...they are always debating and fighting with each other. There is a war between them...

You don't have this problem in Physics. All physicts agree on the established laws of the universe - e = mc^2 ...even if quantum mechanic's get's murky, the probability wave function is still a valid formula. The same can't be said about evolution. It's all abstracted theories ..upon further abstractions. This is inherintly a simple theory because the proposed mechanism of evolution is A to B to C to D...but reality is a lot more complex. The function of a simple cell does not flow in such a linear and simplified manner. Indeed, the complexity of protein structures defies all mathematical probabilities.

Its also for the fact that biology is still entwined more language than it is with science. Take the word "Mutation" for example. If a biologist wants to study the effects of losing gene Z...he induces a mutation by subjecting the cell to carcinogenics or toxins or radiation. However, evolution says that mutation is the driving foce behind natural selection. If this is true, why isn't one of the million fruitflies or mice that undergo knock out experiments "evolving" ...rather they are always showing defects. Another weak exampe that evolutionsts like to give is "viruses building tolerance to antibiotics". Again, this is only an illusion. If the stressor, antibiotics, is removed from the equation, the population of viruses will return to the previous equilibrium. So really, its not an "evolution" per say ...but what is called a "bottle neck" effect..where certain types are killed so other types strive and florish. But under normal conditions it will return back to it's original state.

There is a lot of loop holes as you ...

But as you can see from leevanay's post. Evolution is mostly used to validate social darwinist theories that dominated the intelligensia of the whites in the early 20th century, late 19th century. They were busy measuring skull sizes and brain sizes trying to prove that whites had bigger brains than blacks and mongols and therefore were more superior to the rest. It also validate economic theories, such as those espoused by Adam Smith...and even the current fiasco...on the pretext of "survival of the fittest" which is a term originally coined by Adam Smith but later adopted by Darwinists. Also Karl Marx's book "Das kapital" was dedicated to Charles Darwin, on account of how his materialistic view supported Karl's view. And as you can see from leevanay's avatar...he is a marxist. Not a biologist. Which is why I didn't bother to click on this thread ...until I saw that I had posted on every other section of the forum and ...bored...blah!


any questions?

M,


Which Levanaye Zalmaye post are you talking about?

[roadrunner]

I'll be honest I don't know much about evolution...but I have one question if someone that is well versed in the subject can answer...why humans evolved to to an extent to develop such intelligence and sophistication? Where are the fish or reptilian people?

Does that make sense...? lulz

Humans aren't necessarily the most evolved.

Fish are the most evolved from swimming.

Reptiles for swimming and land habitation.

Humans are the least evolved of any species for anything other than land habitation.

[Midnight_Sun]

Road Runner,

We have our evolutionary edge and that's our brains. Not necessarily bigger brains, (neanderthals and Cro-Magnons had bigger ones), but more convolutions and a way to pass on knowledge to other generations and build on that knowledge. We were great explorers, travelling from Southern Africa through the Middle East to Asia, Europe, and even the Americas as far back as 15,000 years ago. For 100,000 some odd years, we have no history, lots of the coastal lands we occupied are now covered by ocean, our species went through ice ages, droughts, and other geological events that wiped out nearly 90% of our gene pool, but yet we continue to thrive.

The issue of evolution is a non-issue for me. We were NOT the only humans to have populated this planet. We have mapped the entire Neanderthal genome and a brand NEW species of hominids, Denisovans and studies have shown we (Homo Sapiens) not only share common DNA with both, our species has intermingled and bred with them (Asians and Europeans). We are Ironically, as much as Africans receive the bulk of racism in the Western world, they are more genetically pure and carry better variety than any European or Asian for that matter.

I respect Alchemist's claim, but I don't agree with it at all. Just because a controlled experiment occurs (e.g. knocks out a gene which causes a fruit fly for instance to not grow wings), that's not used by evolutionary biologists to 'prove' evolution is real. They are more objective than that. The environment and the genetic ability to pass on those mutations is the most important factor. Mutation happening at the genetic level has many factors, including the carrier proteins which also play a role in how certain strands of amino acids form together. Couple this with other factors in the environment (CO2 levels, temperature, UV, chemicals in the water, predation, isolation, time, etc) and the inability of scientists to track the randomness, you have a potent mix for new species. However, experiments are controlled, what goes on in the real world is not. That's the difference.

As for viruses, viruses mutate so quickly it's hard for scientists to keep track at how to counter-act them. The whole point of them mutating so readily is to counter act the vaccines that readily disable them from persevering. Of course viruses will resort back to equilibrium, but some will carry the markers that can keep them alive while their other relatives lose their ability to thrive in a hostile state. MRSA and VRE are good examples of infections that normally would not happen outside of vectors in a hospital. I don't see at all how this negates evolutionary biology one bit.

So really, its not an "evolution" per say ...but what is called a "bottle neck" effect..where certain types are killed so other types strive and florish. But under normal conditions it will return back to it's original state.

What is it's original state? If the original always changes due to environmental conditions. Although living organisms still retain the same amount of genetic material, that material, depending on it's arrangement can make it phenotypically and biologically different in every way. The only place on Earth that I know that the environment rarely ever changes in deep in the mantle, maybe in the deep sea. And even those creatures, at the genetic level still carry the ability to take some change and will change. Everything changes in time.

[roadrunner]

Evolution is a proven fact.

I'm not sure what he was saying, but he's wrong in saying that mutation drives natural selection.

Natural selection drives evolution, and natural selection is the selection of beneficial traits by nature. Beneficial traits come about through mutation, but the selection of those traits (the driving force) comes through nature. Something like the behaviour of the organism would drive natural selection.

Going back to a KO gene fly. It would not be considered to have evolved because evolution requires nature to select the mutation, not humans.

[آريا]

1) Were the earliest humans Cro-Magnon, Neanderthals or homo
erectus?
2) Are any fossils of Gog and Magog found?

[Midnight_Sun]

For Graveyard of Empires:

Here are some transitional species found by paleontologists for some common animals: