-
-
To religious nut-jobs who don't understand evolution, yes.Originally posted by Luffy View PostComment
-
Billion Year old Cells reveal their Secrets
A team of scientists from the University of Sheffield, the University of Oxford and Boston College, who are exploring rocks around Loch Torridon, have discovered the remarkably preserved remains of organisms that once lived on the bottom of ancient lake beds as long as a billion (1,000 million) years ago.
These fossils illuminate a key moment in the history of evolution when life made the leap from tiny, simple bacterial (prokaryote) cells towards larger, more complex (eukaryotic) cells which would make photosynthesis and sexual reproduction possible. The findings are reported in the journal Nature.
Last edited by Midnight_Sun; 04-14-2011, 01:21 PM.Comment
-
People bicker all you want, but speciation evolution is real. Some of you have good questions; but the fact is we have molecular/biochemical markers which have no other feasible explanation but specication and evolutionary mechanisms which happened over geologic times spans.
Evolution and the concept of Evolution is not new to Muslims; the West nor did Darwin invent it. Nor did earlier generations of Muslims have such a literal understanding of Metaphysical concepts like Adam and Eve which is the primary reason why people are so resilient to natural evolution.Comment
-
Religious nut jobs?
Well I am not the one who thinks he knows how Allah brings life to earth. I have no pretense. If anything. Those who believe in speciation, i.e, humans evolving from primates, are the ones that are dogmatic. If you read their arguments its devoid of any explanation to the how, or the why, but just based on blind faith. "No other explanation" they say...whatever.
ScimitarXEdge, by his own admission is an "agnostic theist". Roshina is Ismailie. And Midnight ... we'll soon find out. So of course from their perspective, I am the religious nut job.
This is the way the disbelievers used to argue with the Prophets (peace be upon them). They asked, how can Allah defy the laws of the universe? How can He bring back us back to life after we are dead and turned to dust? Especially during the times of Isa ibn Maryam, when medicine was of great interest to the people of that time. So he performed miracles for them, by raising the dead back to life, making clay molds of bats that would spring into life and fly, curing the sick of leprosy, giving sight to the congenitally blind. My Lord can do anything He wills. He only has to say "Be" and it is. There is no need for him to make a horse into a donkey and a monkey into a human being, in order to bring him from heaven unto earth. All the prophets were sent with proofs and sign to show to the people that this world is an illusion. Prophet Solomon spoke the languages of the animals and had subordinated the jinnies in his legions. So if you ask these same people if they believe any of this to be true...they'll scratch their head with doubts. Did the moon actually split for Muhammed, peace be upon him? They'll argue the evidence till their last breath. So of course, I am the religious nut job for believing in the Power of Allah. And they are the sane ones for believing in their own half backed theories of speciation which is based on a pseudo science.
Let them bring forth the evidence and let us see...because so far they have failed. But this is the power of the matrix. So "what is the matrix?"Last edited by Alchemist; 04-14-2011, 06:22 PM.Comment
-
Originally posted by Midnight_Sun View Post
it means nothing.
And please stop fooling your self like this.
Instead of referring to secondary sources. Always check the Primary sources. Ever heard of the "chines whisperer" game? By the time you, the third source, posted this, the meaning of the original paper has been completely warped. Allow me to show you the evidence, from the original paper:
Which makes sense.The existence of a terrestrial Precambrian (more than 542 Myr ago) biota has been largely inferred from indirect chemical and geological evidence associated with palaeosols1, 2, the weathering of clay minerals3 and microbially induced sedimentary structures in siliciclastic sediments4. Direct evidence of fossils within rocks of non-marine origin in the Precambrian is exceedingly rare
Then the paper says that it has found a eukaryotic cell, but the crux of the argument falls on the dating of the rock.
how did they date the rocks? Most likely by using radiomateric techniques. And Like I already explained, this method is flawed because it is based on assumptions that are unlikely to be true.
And again, it does not prove speciation or give an explanation to the origin of life.
Fossil Life in ALH 84001?Comment
-
well i agree with the theory of illusion.Comment
-
As a science student i believe in evolution while as a muslim i am confused. What is explanation of hazrat adam and eve?...if a muslim believe in evolution of organisms from unicellular to multicellular then it condradicts his belief in hazrat adam story. Quran says hazrat adam died at the age of 913, and now average human life span is 60-70 years, a result of evolution? Hadiths say that hazrat adam was 90 feet tall and this would be the height of ahl-e-jannat... Qaum-e-aad wa samood are described as people of gigantic sizes...why is human nowadys only of 5 or 6 feet height? Why 90 feet tall skeletons are not discovered?
i am super confused
Comment
-
its easy to believe in reversed evolution than evolutionComment
-
Why do you guys say things like that?Originally posted by Luffy View Post
You should read the Qur'an brother.Comment
-
Originally posted by Luffy View Post
these aren't in the Qur'an but ahadith, and what they're describing is the metaphysical condition of mankind before embodying an Earthly form.Comment
-
-
I have grown accustomed to ignore your rampant ignorance, but you just called Roshina an Ismaeli? What kind of silly BS do you believe? Of all things that I have heard...ISMAELI?! LMAO.Originally posted by Alchemist View Post
I happen to know Roshina a lot more than you do, and the fact that you believe such an absurd notion is reason enough to say you are a loud-mouth with no brains. Spare us already with your pseudo-science. You want people to actually believe such ramblings about evolution when you don't understand it, refuse the most fundamental principles of science, and want to re-write, and re-define every learned scientific method to your own narrow beliefs.
I won't say how religious you are, but when you try to disprove science by using science, and then FAIL miserably, you are anything but acting with reason.And Midnight ... we'll soon find out. So of course from their perspective, I am the religious nut job. Let them bring forth the evidence and let us see...because so far they have failed. But this is the power of the matrix. So "what is the matrix?"
Ismaeli?
Comment
-
Your weekly dose for Evolution News!
Frogs Re-evolve Lost Teeth
"The loss of mandibular teeth in the ancestor of modern frogs and their re-appearance in G. guentheri provides very strong evidence for the controversial idea that complex anatomical traits that are evolutionarily lost can re-evolve, even after being absent for hundreds of millions of years," Dr Wiens says.
Source:
BBC - Earth News - Frogs re-evolved lost lower teeth
Source for more reading:
RE-EVOLUTION OF LOST MANDIBULAR TEETH IN FROGS AFTER MORE THAN 200 MILLION YEARS, AND RE-EVALUATING DOLLO'S LAW - Wiens - 2011 - Evolution - Wiley Online LibraryComment
-
Originally posted by Midnight_Sun View Post
You are just regurgitating without understanding.
First, you show that your understanding of biology is only at a basic highschool biology level since you can only feed on secondary and tertiary sources but dare not delve into the primary because of it's complexity:
Here is the Abstract of the primary article:
Science is about methodology, not speculation. The discussion section of the a journal article is based on the results of the experiments, and here the scientist has leeway to speculate and propose hypothesis for future experiments.Dollo's law states that structures that are evolutionarily lost will not be regained. Recent phylogenetic studies have revealed several potential examples in which Dollo's law seems to be violated, where lost structures appear to have been regained over evolutionary time. However, these examples have recently been questioned and suggested to be methodological artifacts. In this article, I document a striking and incontrovertible phylogenetic example of the re-evolution of a lost, complex structure: mandibular teeth in the frog genus Gastrotheca. I use a time-calibrated phylogeny for 170 amphibian species to show that mandibular teeth were lost in the ancestor of modern frogs at least 230 million years ago (Mya) and have been regained in the last ∼5–17 My. I review recent studies on trait re-evolution and show that this long period of trait absence prior to re-acquisition is largely unprecedented. I also argue that there are several methodological issues that may cause trait re-evolution to be hardest to detect under those conditions when it is most likely to occur, leading to erroneous failures to reject Dollo's law. Finally, I discuss a mechanism that may facilitate trait re-evolution, and the evolution of mandibular teeth in frogs as an example of developmental constraint.
Notice first that this article is trying to refute another "evolutionary delusion" known as "Dollo's law". In effect, it reaffirms my earlier statement that within the theory of evolution, there is a war of ideas. There is no consensus amongst biologist on what really is evolution! Here the author tries to revive, and defend Dalton's law, which was first believed to be always true, then found to be not true...but now this author tries to recounter, and show a violation to dollo's law by "proposing a mechanism".
The crux of this article lies on the method used by the quoted scientist:
time-calibrated phylogeny.
In reality there is no such thing as "time calibrated phylogeny". This method is based on nothing but assumptions. The DNA time clock is just a hoax. Put simply, the "molecular clock" is ONLY a hypothesis! It is not a fact!
Here it is from wiki - your trusted source:
[QUOTE]Knowledge of approximately-constant rate of molecular evolution in particular sets of lineages also facilitates establishing the dates of phylogenetic events, including those not documented by fossils, such as the divergence of living taxa and the formation of the phylogenetic tree. But in these cases — especially over long stretches of time — the limitations of MCH (above) must be considered; such estimates may be off by 50% or more.[/QUOTE]
OFF BY 50%!
Nay, in fact, it could be off by at least 75%! So this is nothing more than guess work!
If you had access to the journal article and studied the actual paper, I bet you the author himself would confess to this.
However, for nimble minded individuals who need to look at silly cartoon diagrams and bbc articles written by high school drop outs...the leap from guesswork to factual is a leap of faith.
This again proves that people who wholeheartedly believe in evolution are truly dogmatic. They do not understand the "science" of it or it's complexity but would foolishly sit here and try to debate on behalf of it. Not based on the details, but only it's illusions.
Keep posting these articles...50 years from now they will look back at you and laugh for believing this nonsense.Comment
Tweet
Comment