Evolution, why us?

[طالب]

quite simply evolution is concerened with the process

False, the theory of evolution is concerned with the process. Not the fact of evolution.

the whole of science is concerned with the question HOW. what is obvious.

Of course, 99.9% the whole scientific community takes the fact of evolution for granted, so why would they discuss it? What is being discussed is the theory of evolution, i.e. how it occurs.

Everyone already agrees that organisms developed from organisms, why would they be concerned with something that is already so overwhelmingly established that the scientific community has even decided to call it fact?

how is of no consequence to a scientist!

That's not what I said. I said the fact that it did happen is of no concern to scientists because they all agree it did. Furthermore how it occurred does not have any influence on the evidence that it did occur.

EVERY SINGLE book of science deals ONLY with the how!

Of course, they're talking about the ToE, not the FoE. They already assume the FoE is true so they don't even mention it.

What is being debated is how it occurred, not if it occurred. But you won't even agree that it did occur.

Its about mechanisms...biochemistry... biology...physics ... its only the how...why scientific journal? because it has a methodology section!

The ToE is about the mechanisms, not the FoE.

Sinec you are trying to divorce evolution from its scientific aspect...

I'm not. All this time I've being arguing that the FoE is scientific. I've got a proposition, the evidence to support it and it is even falsifiable.

[طالب]

atoms, dna, and magnetism are "observable" when the right tools of observation are used...

See, you admit it yourself. We can't see it directly. We have to use tools so we can see it indirectly.

Just like we can't see the FoE directly, but we have evidence to support it, e.g. the fossil record.

That's simply how science works.

[طالب]

so now fossil record is a tool?

Well it's "indirect" evidence, just like measuring magnetism using tools is indirect.

In both cases we can't see with our naked eyes the phenomenon we're examining, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or are "unscientific".

[Alchemist]

Well it's "indirect" evidence, just like measuring magnetism using tools is indirect.

In both cases we can't see with our naked eyes the phenomenon we're examining, but that doesn't mean they don't exist or are "unscientific".

^ direct evidence. Grade 5.

What is your education level, goat?

What is the highest level you've gone to?

Because I've already proved that your unqualified, and mentally challenged, so unfit for debate on this topic.

What's my proof?

Well, you still stubbornly refuse to admit that prokaryotes, unicellular organisms are not invertebrates because you say they lack a spinal cord. My chair lacks a spinal cord, so that too is an invertebrate? my computer is an invertebrate? According to you it is.
Then you ceaselessly keep saying that "Fact of evolution" has nothing to do with speciation, however, your proposition is that it explains how animals and plants "develop" from other animals and plants ...which by definition is speciation. And then refuse to give evidence for it.
Then you keep saying that humans evolved from unicellular organisms, but when I ask you what did bacteria evolve from? You say it doesn't matter because "fact of evolution" doesn't concern it self with origins. Yet, the site that you have copied and pasted the entire place onto here is called "talk origin". Why "origin" talk? Why did Darwin call his book "Origin of Species" because evolution's main concern is origin of life.
Since you can't talk about the process, then your proposition "development of animals and plants from different animals and plants" is void, unsubstantiated and dogmatic.

IF you can't understand this, then you have a mental problem. Seek help.

Thanks for wasting my time, the mods time and every one elses.

Oh obviously, you want to have the last word ...but first answer my question:

what is your education level?

[طالب]

^ direct evidence.

Please define direct evidence. When I say direct evidence I mean that you can actually observe the phenomenon with the naked eye. We can't see the force of magnetism with our own eyes. What you've shown is indirect evidence in the form of iron filings laid out on a paper. We can see the iron filings aligning themselves magnetically, but we can't see the force itself directly.

Take another example, cells. We can't see cells with the naked eye, only through tools such as a microscope.

Are you going to deny that cells exist simply because we can't see them with the naked eye?

your proposition is that it explains how animals and plants "develop" from other animals and plants ...

No, you are repeatedly stating falsehoods. I've explained this over and over again, yet you continue to try to redefine definitions accepted by the scientific community simply because they don't suit you.

My proposition is simply the FoE, i.e. forms of animal and plant life (organisms, if you will) developed out of forms significantly different from them.

Now unless you have difficulty reading English, it should be quite clear that it states nothing about how this development occurs. It doesn't say anything about speciation or natural selection. It doesn't say "animal and plant life developed through natural selection".

It doesn't matter how many times you try to put in the word "how" or "speciation" or "natural selection" into the definition, it simply isn't there.

How it happened is explained in the ToE (Theory of Evolution) and is another discussion. Even if we didn't know how it happened, the case for the FoE would still stand.

which by definition is speciation.

No;

Development != through the process of speciation/natural selection/whatever you feel like.

And then refuse to give evidence for it.

Why would I give evidence for something I'm not trying to defend and haven't even mentioned once in my case for the FoE?

Then you keep saying that humans evolved from unicellular organisms, but when I ask you what did bacteria evolve from? You say it doesn't matter because "fact of evolution" doesn't concern it self with origins. Yet, the site that you have copied and pasted the entire place onto here is called "talk origin". Why "origin" talk?

Seriously? Are you trying to argue that the origin of life is part of the FoE because of the title of a website? Frankly this is ridiculous.

I don't know why the website is called talkorigins, but I know that the website itself contains articles in which it is explained that evolution concerns itself with with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began:

The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. Claiming that evolution does not apply without a theory of abiogenesis makes as much sense as saying that umbrellas do not work without a theory of meteorology.

I think it is called talkorigins because it also has information on the origin of life. I haven't looked into it though because the origin of life is not relevant to evolution.

Now if you want to discuss the origin of life, i.e. abiogenesis, then open another thread on it, and stop spamming this thread with irrelevant nonsense.

Why did Darwin call his book "Origin of Species" because evolution's main concern is origin of life.

Hahaha, I can't believe you just made that up to counter my argument. That's hilarious!

On the Origin of Species does not even talk about the origin of life. The book "presents a theory that populations evolve through a process of natural selection". The book has nothing to do with abiogenesis!

Maybe that's why he called it the "Origin of Species" and not the "Origin of Life".

Since you can't talk about the process, then your proposition "development of animals and plants from different animals and plants" is void, unsubstantiated and dogmatic.

Naa, because as I've stated numerous times the proposition doesn't state how the process came about. Thus in order to defend it I really don't need to go into the hows of the process.

what is your education level?

This question is of course completely irrelevant and is simply designed to mock me:

- If I respond that I have no higher education, you'll claim that I'm too "stupid" to talk about science. (actually a despicably elitist claim that reveals a lot about your attitude towards poor people who might not be able to afford the higher education. An opportunity that you, thank God, have allegedly been blessed with)

- If I respond that I have a higher education in another field than biology you'll claim I'm not qualified to talk about evolution.

- If I respond that I have a higher education in biology you'll respond I've been brainwashed by evolution at college.

Thus it's a lose/lose situation for me. Unlike you, I have no need to parade my credentials around on this forum. People can read my posts and judge for themselves.

But consider this for a moment, what if I were a high school dropout? That would mean that you, allegedly a PhD in biology, are being dragged around your own home court by somebody who's never even studied the subject.

[Alchemist]

you are dragging me around the court?

Son. Your delusional.

Be a man and answer the question. What is your qualification? Have you ever read a book of biology in your life? Come on. How stupid are you? Some google searches and some copy pasting here and there and you are convinced that you are on the truth? So far you have said so many things that were absolutely wrong, that if you were actually in a biology class, and writing that as answers for a test on evolution, you would have failed miserably. But because you live in your own cacoon, you think you are winning here. You selectively read what you want and show to the rest of people how the psychology of a brainwashed person works. In absolute denial. Dragging me? Lol? Where is your proofs?

You just think that because you can post here you are actually winning but I've proved you wrong on EVERY single line.

Look how stupid you are. You don't even know what DIRECT evidence means and what INDIRECT evidence means. A magnet is a DIRECT evidence of MAGNETISM. Come one. How stupid are you when you tell me that magnetism can't be observed? Put a magnet in hot water and it loses it's magnetism. Rub it in one direction with a magnet and it's magnetic properties are restored. The compass is a direct evidence of the magenetic field of the earth. Indirect evidence is what stromatilites are because it is just a pattern in the rock, where we just assume that there could have been some cells that caused it to form in that shape, but because no cell can survive over millions of years, we can only guess that it was. If you come across some large drop of **** on the floor, you can say that it's DIRECT evidence that a cow or a camel passed by here. But when it comes to single celled organism what's the excretes? Do you know?

Lol

how stupid are you bro?

I read this and am just amazed by the psychological defenses set up in your weak mind

Maybe that's why he called it the "Origin of Species" and not the "Origin of Life"

Oh wow.

AMAZING! You should be put in a circus and show cased around the world. Debate with an idiot, and he'll bring you down to his level and beat you at what he is best at, being an idiot. Have you even read origin of species?

Species is what? non living thing. This is what you are splitting hair over?

What's next?

because as I've stated numerous times the proposition doesn't state how the process came about. Thus in order to defend it I really don't need to go into the hows of the process.

Come on bro. You are idiot.

The proposition doesn't state how, but it states that evolution does, but then you say you don't have to provide the proof for it because you are not arguing for evolution, you are arguing for what?
If you were debating with me in person, I would have smacked you upside the head already. Just to shake your brain because clearly there is something wrong with you. You need to get your brain reset bro.

Basically, you won't tell us what your qualifications are because you don't have any. Which is why you are just parroting talkorigin like a mindless drone. Ceaselessly copying and pasting from it because in your mind that source is more valide than me. You just have it in your mind that I can't be write, but that old man who has a ph.d from a university must be right. That is why the evidence doesn't matter to you.

And no, I am not a ph.d candidate. I just quoted your first post on this thread where you boasted of having debated a ph.d biology student who was against evolution. Clearly you are using this forum as a way to compensate for your lack of education. This is just a show for you. The way a neglected child misbehaves so that his father would give him some attention, even if it is negative. This is why you are always smirking from orgasmic delight to just have me respond to you. This gives you that feeling that you haven't missed out much from not going to a single biology class in your life, for not ever having read a single book on biology or even know how genes get transcribed, what proteins and enzymes are, what is differences of eukaryotes and prokaryotes are, or what even constitutes science and scientific vigor. You don't even have that scientific spirit. All this smugness and arrogance attests to the fact that you are just doing this for your puny ego. Well son... you wouldn't know what evolution is even if Darwin slapped you with... you are just a deluded fraud. Look at the way you are argue with me. Never conceding fault. Never accepting your shortcomings. Arrogant. Haughty. Boastful. This is just some game for you. You are no student of knowledge nor care to understand what it is you are arguing for. Some people gave you praise for standing up to me...but have you noticed something? Those people left you long ago... they no longer want to associate with you no more. I have exposed you butt naked, goat. Let's see who will stand here and say "Goat is on the right on this or that". No one will even bother to argue pro-evolution after this. Guilt by association. Goat- what?

HAHA ... what a dummy you are. "Naked eye" AHAHAHAHA... son I use contacts, does that mean my eyes are not naked? Get lost goat. You are just an embarrassment. Go wipe the snot off your nose and come back when you know what you are talking about. A little knowledge does a lot of harm.

[khashayar]

you are dragging me around the court?

Son. Your delusional.

Be a man and answer the question. What is your qualification? Have you ever read a book of biology in your life? Come on. How stupid are you? Some google searches and some copy pasting here and there and you are convinced that you are on the truth? So far you have said so many things that were absolutely wrong, that if you were actually in a biology class, and writing that as answers for a test on evolution, you would have failed miserably. But because you live in your own cacoon, you think you are winning here. You selectively read what you want and show to the rest of people how the psychology of a brainwashed person works. In absolute denial. Dragging me? Lol? Where is your proofs?

You just think that because you can post here you are actually winning but I've proved you wrong on EVERY single line.

Look how stupid you are. You don't even know what DIRECT evidence means and what INDIRECT evidence means. A magnet is a DIRECT evidence of MAGNETISM. Come one. How stupid are you when you tell me that magnetism can't be observed? Put a magnet in hot water and it loses it's magnetism. Rub it in one direction with a magnet and it's magnetic properties are restored. The compass is a direct evidence of the magenetic field of the earth. Indirect evidence is what stromatilites are because it is just a pattern in the rock, where we just assume that there could have been some cells that caused it to form in that shape, but because no cell can survive over millions of years, we can only guess that it was. If you come across some large drop of **** on the floor, you can say that it's DIRECT evidence that a cow or a camel passed by here. But when it comes to single celled organism what's the excretes? Do you know?

Lol

how stupid are you bro?

I read this and am just amazed by the psychological defenses set up in your weak mind

Oh wow.

AMAZING! You should be put in a circus and show cased around the world. Debate with an idiot, and he'll bring you down to his level and beat you at what he is best at, being an idiot. Have you even read origin of species?

Species is what? non living thing. This is what you are splitting hair over?

What's next?
Come on bro. You are idiot.

The proposition doesn't state how, but it states that evolution does, but then you say you don't have to provide the proof for it because you are not arguing for evolution, you are arguing for what?
If you were debating with me in person, I would have smacked you upside the head already. Just to shake your brain because clearly there is something wrong with you. You need to get your brain reset bro.

Basically, you won't tell us what your qualifications are because you don't have any. Which is why you are just parroting talkorigin like a mindless drone. Ceaselessly copying and pasting from it because in your mind that source is more valide than me. You just have it in your mind that I can't be write, but that old man who has a ph.d from a university must be right. That is why the evidence doesn't matter to you.

And no, I am not a ph.d candidate. I just quoted your first post on this thread where you boasted of having debated a ph.d biology student who was against evolution. Clearly you are using this forum as a way to compensate for your lack of education. This is just a show for you. The way a neglected child misbehaves so that his father would give him some attention, even if it is negative. This is why you are always smirking from orgasmic delight to just have me respond to you. This gives you that feeling that you haven't missed out much from not going to a single biology class in your life, for not ever having read a single book on biology or even know how genes get transcribed, what proteins and enzymes are, what is differences of eukaryotes and prokaryotes are, or what even constitutes science and scientific vigor. You don't even have that scientific spirit. All this smugness and arrogance attests to the fact that you are just doing this for your puny ego. Well son... you wouldn't know what evolution is even if Darwin slapped you with... you are just a deluded fraud. Look at the way you are argue with me. Never conceding fault. Never accepting your shortcomings. Arrogant. Haughty. Boastful. This is just some game for you. You are no student of knowledge nor care to understand what it is you are arguing for. Some people gave you praise for standing up to me...but have you noticed something? Those people left you long ago... they no longer want to associate with you no more. I have exposed you butt naked, goat. Let's see who will stand here and say "Goat is on the right on this or that". No one will even bother to argue pro-evolution after this. Guilt by association. Goat- what?

HAHA ... what a dummy you are. "Naked eye" AHAHAHAHA... son I use contacts, does that mean my eyes are not naked? Get lost goat. You are just an embarrassment. Go wipe the snot off your nose and come back when you know what you are talking about. A little knowledge does a lot of harm.

are you for real?

you diabolical ramblings are an embarrasment.

you are attacking the individual with grossly rude and shameful remarks.

i suggest you learn a little respect for fellow forum members and start acting like someone who is mature enough to debate like an adult..and not some baby who has just had his dummy snatched.

[Alchemist]

are you for real?

you diabolical ramblings are an embarrasment.

you are attacking the individual with grossly rude and shameful remarks.

i suggest you learn a little respect for fellow forum members and start acting like someone who is mature enough to debate like an adult..and not some baby who has just had his dummy snatched.

I have no respect for someone like goat.

He is making a mockery of the Sciences.

Darwin would turn in his grave if he knew what this goat was saying right now.

He is just here to show off and I ll call a spade a spade...

and you my friend ...what's your problem? Why are you even here? Do you know anything about evolution?

Here is my advice for you kids.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Please. Educate yourselves first. Then come debate me. Then you won't say stupid things like the above goat. You talk stupid, you are stupid. Don't like it? Stop being stupid.

And no, I don't respect goat at all. He is a fraud and a con. And he knows it. What irritates me is the fact that he is that audacity to keep coming here shamelessly and deny his own faults. He is not here to debate. He is here to get pleasure. And personally, I think he likes it like that.

So Mr. ghat...you spammed this thread enough already with your idiotic pictures...go back to the entertainment section and post some pictures of ugly indians...because thats all you are good for - comic relief. Talk about respect? Pfft. hypocrites.

[kakargirl]

Excellent posts wror very professional excellent stuff written like a true pro, respect to you wror.

[طالب]

Look how stupid you are. You don't even know what DIRECT evidence means and what INDIRECT evidence means. A magnet is a DIRECT evidence of MAGNETISM.

Define direct and indirect evidence.

How stupid are you when you tell me that magnetism can't be observed?

That's not what I said. I said that we can't observe magnetism with our naked eye. Only through indirect evidence can we observe it, such as iron filings on a piece of paper, which you showed a picture of just before.

The compass is a direct evidence of the magenetic field of the earth.

But the compass is a tool. We can't see the magnetic field directly with our naked eye, only through tools such as a compass.

Again, define direct and indirect evidence.

Indirect evidence is what stromatilites are because it is just a pattern in the rock

And a compass is just a magnetized pointer. Both are evidence of something we cannot directly observe. In the case of the stromatolites they're evidence of billion year old life forms, and in the case of the compass it is evidence of magnetism.

I believe the reason why you don't define direct and indirect evidence, but only give examples of them, is because:

1. You don't know the definitions.

2. If you tried to provide definitions your argument would instantly fall apart, because all sorts of mundane scientific theories would prove to be "only" supported by indirect evidence.

, where we just assume that there could have been some cells that caused it to form in that shape, but because no cell can survive over millions of years, we can only guess that it was.

Wrong. Stromatolites exist today, we can study them and compare them with the billion year old stromatolites. No guessing is required.

If you come across some large drop of **** on the floor, you can say that it's DIRECT evidence that a cow or a camel passed by here.

*sigh* Define direct and indirect evidence or your argument is useless.

When you're talking about direct evidence I assume you mean direct visual evidence?

But we don't have direct visual evidence of atomic structures, black holes, electricity, relativity or DNA. But so what? That doesn't mean those things don't exist.

Most chemistry is based on indirect evidence, would you ever start doubting the atomic structure of chemicals because you can't see it with the naked eye?

Have you even read origin of species?

The Origin of Species, and whether I have read it or not, is irrelevant to the case for the FoE, because it deals with how the process of evolution occurred.

Species is what? non living thing. This is what you are splitting hair over?

Species, as in how different species developed.

Life, as in how the first life came to be.

The proposition doesn't state how

Good, I'm happy you understand.

, but it states that evolution does, but then you say you don't have to provide the proof for it because you are not arguing for evolution, you are arguing for what?

No, I am not saying that. I'm saying that I'm arguing for the Fact of Evolution, not the Theory of Evolution.

The theory of evolution (ToE) deals with how the process happened.

The fact of evolution (FoE) simply states that organisms developed into other organisms significantly different from them.

I have to provide proof for the FoE because that is what I'm trying to argue the case for. I don't have to provide proof for the ToE because I'm not arguing the case for it.

Incidentally I have provided the proof for the FoE:

Evidence:
1. Living things come from living things. (never observed anything else)
2. Living things are different from each other (e.g. unicellular organisms are different from vertebrates)
3. Some kinds of living things existed on Earth before other kinds (e.g. unicellular organisms existed on Earth billions of years before vertebrates, see fossil record)

Conclusion:
Thus, scientifically, the "other kinds of living things" (e.g. vertebrates) must have come from the "former kinds living things" (e.g. unicellular organisms).

If you were debating with me in person, I would have smacked you upside the head already. Just to shake your brain because clearly there is something wrong with you. You need to get your brain reset bro.

I use contacts, does that mean my eyes are not naked?

Yes:

na·ked eye

noun Definition:unaided vision: human sight without the aid of a microscope, telescope, or other optical instrument

[faye]

I have no respect for someone like goat.

He is making a mockery of the Sciences.

Darwin would turn in his grave if he knew what this goat was saying right now.

He is just here to show off and I ll call a spade a spade...

and you my friend ...what's your problem? Why are you even here? Do you know anything about evolution?

Here is my advice for you kids.

GO BACK TO SCHOOL!

Please. Educate yourselves first. Then come debate me. Then you won't say stupid things like the above goat. You talk stupid, you are stupid. Don't like it? Stop being stupid.

And no, I don't respect goat at all. He is a fraud and a con. And he knows it. What irritates me is the fact that he is that audacity to keep coming here shamelessly and deny his own faults. He is not here to debate. He is here to get pleasure. And personally, I think he likes it like that.

So Mr. ghat...you spammed this thread enough already with your idiotic pictures...go back to the entertainment section and post some pictures of ugly indians...because thats all you are good for - comic relief. Talk about respect? Pfft. hypocrites.

'pride and conceit is a disease of the heart and is such a critical disease that it's cure is very difficult. pride literally means that one feels great and superior, along with this he looks down upon others in a despicable and contemptous manner' imam ghazaali.
remind us of anyone?

[Alchemist]

Did this buffoon actually repeat his argument again?

lol

Are you kidding me goat?


You are going to argue with me on what is direct evidence?


Well let's do it son.

But we don't have direct visual evidence of atomic structures, black holes, electricity, relativity or DNA. But so what? That doesn't mean those things don't exist.

Atomic structures?

Well, this proves it. You have not even gone to school. You never been to a physics class son? You didn't study the history of how the atoms were discovered?
So which Atom's structure do you want to see son? How about Carbon?



awww...you don't know what it is you are looking at. Do you?
There there child...if you had gone to school...this would have been elementary for you.





Of course, we can't "see" black holes, genius, that is why it is called a black hole. It sucks the light in, and it can't reflect it nor does it project it. However, we can see that effects of a black holeby looking at star clusters close to it. Black holes have gravity and by watching the movement of other stars we can tell where they are.

here you go buddy..

The first direct evidence that black holes are created by supernova explosions comes from a source known as GRO J1655-40, which lies 10,000 light years away in the direction of the constellation Scorpius. It was discovered in 1994 by BATSE as an X-ray nova.

Astronomers Find First Direct Evidence Linking Black Holes and Supernovae

Oh you have never seen electricity?

tsk tsk tsk ..

Let me show you electricity.




yes, my son. This is called ELEC-TRI-CITY.
No no ...its has nothing to do with cities. Ok?







Oh! You have never seen relativity?

Well...you see this:



This is how it works my son:



Yes, its based on calculations under General Relativity.
So are these:



oh you poor goat. You still haven't seen DNA?



You see, my goat. It's called a chromosome. DNA is tightly coiled into chromatin. Oh that is still advanced for you. Maybe next month we'll cover how we can image the structure of DNA and then we can talk about Watson and Crick.

Here goat.



eat this ...good goat.

It's ok. You haven't been to school. But uncle Alchemist is here. I will home school you. Be a good boy and read what I say intently.

[طالب]

You are going to argue with me on what is direct evidence?

Yeah, why don't you starty by providing a definition of "direct evidence"?

I'm still waiting...

While I wait, think of this:

You are claiming that the only good evidence is direct evidence. In the courtroom, direct evidence is eyewitness testimony, photographs or video footage. Everything else is indirect evidence (DNA, a murder weapon, fingerprints, blood spatters, motive, allabies, etc.).

When you advocate the position that evolution is not science without seeing it directly, you are also saying that a prosecutor cannot find out who killed their victim unless they saw it happen.
Do you really believe this?

Atomic structures?

That's not visual confirmation of atomic structures with our own naked eyes, that's an emission spectrum.

You can't see atomic structures directly, because they're too small to see.

The emission spectrum is in fact the perfect example of indirect evidence.

Read this:

Pretty much everything we know about atoms is indirect evidence. One can't really see atoms. We do see enough of their effects that we can, with confidence, describe the nature of atoms. Here at Jefferson Lab we have quite a few instruments to measure the properties and behavior of atoms. We use a few simple tricks to measure atoms. The most common method is to shoot the atoms through an easy-to-ionize gas or liquid. Argon is the most common that we use. As the atoms or even pieces of atoms fly through the gas electrons are stripped off of them and are left behind. We drift those loose electrons to a collection device, a wire or panel, and measure the charge. It is a little more complex than that, but it works well enough that we get consistent results. It's like putting together a puzzle that's missing some pieces. If you get enough pieces in the right place you can tell what the picture is even though it still has holes.

http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_01.html

Of course, we can't "see" black holes, genius, that is why it is called a black hole. It sucks the light in, and it can't reflect it nor does it project it. However, we can see that effects of a black holeby looking at star clusters close to it. Black holes have gravity and by watching the movement of other stars we can tell where they are.

Ah, so we can only observe them using indirect evidence. Yet you still agree that they exist!

If you agree that black holes exist on the background of indirect evidence, then you must also agree that evolution exists on the background of indirect evidence!

Astronomers Find First Direct Evidence Linking Black Holes and Supernovae

That's not something you can observe with the naked eye, you still have to use tools to observe it.

Oh you have never seen electricity?

tsk tsk tsk ..

Let me show you electricity.

But I've never seen the electricity running through my computer, according to you that must mean there is no electricity.

Oh! You have never seen relativity?

Well...you see this:


This is how it works my son:

Yes, its based on calculations under General Relativity.

Yeah, and that's what we call indirect evidence, not direct evidence.

We can't directly observe relativity, but using tools and conducting experiments we can indirectly produce evidence that substantiate it.

oh you poor goat. You still haven't seen DNA?

That's not direct evidence, that's indirect evidence in the form of a coloured scanning electron micrograph (SEM) of a chromosome.

We can't see a chromosome, or DNA with the naked eye. We have to use tools to observe them.

[Manzareh]

So which part of Islam agrees with evoloution??
which main scholars or schools of thought believe that evolution is completely compatible with Islam? anyone?

[طالب]

So which part of Islam agrees with evoloution??
which main scholars or schools of thought believe that evolution is completely compatible with Islam? anyone?

Hi.

You're posting the question in the wrong section of the forum. This section is for the discussion of evolution as a science. You should ask your question in the Religion section of the forum where there is already a thread open on the relationship between Islam and evolution.

Please return if you have any questions about evolution as a science.