|
Hey Sohil, great addition to the education of anyone willing or able to reason. The Gene mixing is not evolution but variation. eg a black man marries a white woman and produce a brown child. That isnt evolution. Its variation. The child is not of a higher class. But the same class of human but of different characteristics. A variant. Not a step to a new species. as always a great and important clip, thanx Sohil. that evolution is a fact , is a fact!..  Don't I have to give up my belief in God? Actually you do. If you accept evolution as change over time, i.e. a simpler thing evolving into a more advanced or more complicated organism how can one accept that at the begining it's OK to start with the most complex of all creatures, a god. Impossible . Why would God go to the effort of introducing evolution when at a snap of the finger he could produce the entire biotic catalog. No point in making things evolve unless of course he/she was a jester. The RR diehards would just say that he is testing our beleif system. Recently heard Dawkins speak and he planted these meme's into the audience. Anyway starting the big bang with a God seems very illogical in the face of evolution. He says evolution is fact and then goes on to describe adaptation. While evolution would require adaptation, adaptation alone isn't proof of evolution. As for the difference, adaptation is based on changes within a species while evolution involves one species becoming another species. That isn't to say this disproves evolution, just that you can't say because adaptation exists then evolution must be a fact. sohil, an evolution of creation in great clipping skill  I have no problem mixing science with faith. Science only makes my faith greater. I think science and the bible prove one another without anyone realizing it. I think science and the bible prove one another without anyone realizing it.Please say more. As for the difference, adaptation is based on changes within a species while evolution involves one species becoming another species.And it's addressed in the clip
Ali, you're not exactly helping your claim that Islam is compatible with science. Well for instance, adam and eve in the garden of eden. Banished from the garden and doomed to live directly on the planet. The bible doesn't really describe play by play anything that happened at that point. Only the offspring is described following that event. God didn't tell us what he did to make this occur. Neither could he, would he, or should he have done so. Science and the bible at this one point converge with lots of unanswered questions in my opinion. Science has no word yet on the real missing link perhaps because we may never really find it. And from the bible standpoint whats to say with Gods power he couldn't turn time inside out and upside down to send us back to single cell ... Hi Sohil. Evolution , as your clip says is just a thoery. Theories can be right and can be wrong. Our Creator has given us insight into how things got created and what things happened etc, that no human being can know. This insider information enables Muslims to say what theory is likely to be correct and what is likely to be wrong. Evolution theory is definitly wrong from the knowledge we Muslims beleive has come down from the Creator. Muslims do not worship Science. They woship the Creator of humans and so science is just a creation of a creature. ie no big deal. Just observations and theories. But the Creator gives us real truths, not theories. Granted some truths can be interpreted in ... Science is not just a creation of a creature....god entrusted the world to us and as a higher organism we need a path and a guide for us to maintain the lifeforms in the world. Science is the path...Biology to sustain the life, create medicine, Physics, Chemistry. etc.... Religion on the other hand goes along with science to guide men who practices science...Bout evolution...maybe black+white= brown but how bout white+white=Down Syndrome. Down syndrome is a genetic disorder which practically shows the evolution in a smaller scale a.k.a Basic Evolution Evolution is triggered and catalyzed by surrounding factors like radiation , air composure and of course observation of evolution in labs are... For me evolution is purely a psychological phenomena. There is only bias and prejudice under pinning it. No real science. They talk about a missing link and yet continue with a theory that has a missing link, in the hope they will find it some day. Regarding down syndrome, its quite funny actually to bring that as an example. Evolution is meant to be a step up , not a step down. That is called Devolution. And you are right, normally things devolve and break down, eg decomposition of old material etc. This is against evolution. To explain downsyndrome, I look at it that there are systems that the Creator has designed without which we would all perish eg our immune system, reproductive sys... But the main problem is that because scientists are biased , they do not present people with two sides of the coin, they prefer to hide one side and present only one side. They say only evolution exists as a valid theory to explain our reality. The Creator theory they do not accept and thus do not teach to people so that each of us can choose which theory makes more sense. They hide one and focus only on the other. And when someone brings that into attention, they start rediculing the Creator theory, making out it doesnt make sense. When in reality it is the only one that does make sense. This is the truth in my opinion and I challenge anyone to find an error in this. Any scientists out there ? a step down? Because they are retards...u wouldn't know what other ability they have besides their obvious retarded side.... A Down Syndrome person doesn't know vice, not like us humans...so is it a down or up... The perception of evolution is external is absolutely wrong....It applies down there deep in the heart too.... How do you know its a step up? don't u think being a good person is a good thing...from being 50% nice to 100% nice. Thats holier than normal homosapiens even with few defects... Isnt this against the survival of the fittest principle? these species , assuming there are a new species, will be the first to be wiped out. Evolution should produce more and more callous species that are heartless and dont care about murdering others in order to survive better. Excellent clip, sohil! AliMuslim said:You know, instead of proving your ignorance on the subject, you could also actually read the clipped page & respond to what's there instead of attempting to refute c... Tell me what i dont understand if your aim is to be helpful Maybe it is you that does not understand. & please, stop spamming every single clipmark with the evolutiondeceit site. Clip it & get over it.Proof that the issue is a psychological one. Evolutionists can bear to have an alternative viewpoint presented in front of them. Why? Because they cant defeat it. They only know how to redicule it. Sorry that should be 'Can't bear to have an...' AliMuslim said:I'd say evolutionary theory as a whole. But you're probably asking me to be more specific, so here goes: Those quotes pulled from this discussion sofar were a little pointer to what it actually is you misunderstand. I guess i'll repeat them: -Evolution is not just a theory (but a fact) -Evolution is not just a psychological phenomenon -Evolution is not directed 'upwards', whatever direction that may be (its about adaptation to the environment) -Scientists look at all sides of the coin -Evolution should not necessarily promote more callous species. & since you've asked, other things you may misunderstand: -genetics, theory of natural... Anonymology, Whenever there is a scientific discovery or a theory that is proven by the observation of facts, these are just additional revelations to fallible human beings of truths that have always existed. Each theory is then intensely and rigidly tested by subsequent observations, which provide either additional proof and acceptance or error and rejection. This is how the truth is revealed. There will always be people who insist on one aspect of knowledge to the exclusion of the other and are plagued with the realization that religion and science cannot prove each other, so the dichotomy between the two opposing forces has never been either a political or a personal problem for me. From above said:Is this in reference to that, Debby? Both compliment each other in that truths are revealed to fallible human beings. Ah, ok. I was just wondering why you were addressing me! Hey wait there..... evolution creates more inhumane species. Survival of the fittest...In early stoneage people kill animals and do they feel for them? i dun think so...and nowdays humans are getting more ruthless by having animals as pets, establishing zoos, WWF etc. isn't it. If human is heartless why not wipe out all the other species present... no rivalry, no competition. Maybe Down syndrome doesn't seem to click what about fishes that can change sex. Aren't a species should be a male or a female. Sex-changing fish are known as successive hermaphrodites--each fish can make either testes or ovaries and produce either eggs or sperm. The simultaneous hermaphrodite, however, comes equipped... Ali First. evolution is not directional or progressive, it doesn't go up,down or sideways. It is simply change through time. The core scientific theory of why populations change through time is based on Darwin's theory of natural selection (Darwinism for short). Second, the idea of a missing links is, at best, antiquated. I am not sure it ever really existed outside the popular press. Criticizing natural selection on the basis of missing links is like criticizing open-heart surgery for its reliance on the concept of evil humours. Third, and this is probably the key one, since speciation is, I think, the central religious problem with Darwinism. Here is my challenge to you--what ... Djiezes , thanks for your posting. I am grateful for it. But I disagree with you. Especially evolution being a fact. Why do they still call it a theory then?????? Second, show me one scientist that looks at creationism impartially as another side of the coin. They all redicule it ie are unbiased towards it, without justification in my view. The simplest proof of the bias is that at school children are not taught that there are two ways to look at our reality, espeically in the realm of science. But are taught only evolution and deliberately omit religion as not a valid view of things. Why is that???? I would appreciate you following on this discussion as i think it would be beneficial. M... tpq thanks for your comments, they are the most informative and i accept your challenge. Will respond more later God willing. take care ali Ali, survival of the fittest only occurs in a specific niche. BTW, For us Evolution was thought as a theory in schools (in India) and the school was based on Vedanta philosophy. Ok tpq. Evolution in my understanding means all creatures of God, where not created by the Creator Being 'instantly' as it were. Instead they ALL started from tiny molecules that with random events eg some lightening from a distant cloud and some heat and water, formed into more complicated molecules and then eventually these things had life and became living, and then they continued to evolve (like how cars evolve every year with newer faster models being designed by the designers and produced at the manufacturing plants etc). They continued to evolve randomly and somehow they started to adpat and change to fit their different environments such that those most successful stayed on and tho... The key thing in my explaination of description of evolution is that there is no controller of evolution. Its purely random and the most succesful win , based on the permutations that have happened to them. These permutations are also random. ie its like saying the new car models come out of the car plants without designers to design the latest features, and without anyone actually working to manufacture them. The process of reproduction (or self generation or self manfacture) must also have happened randomly as some sort of permutation. I wonder how that started, anyone have any ideas. As without this process there would be no new species generated and nothing new to undergo more permutati... Another problem with the evolution theory is that it doesnt talk about where the tiniest initial bit came from . It just wants to assume it is there. And that it has no mind, and that other things exists around it that permutate it and so you get what we're looking for. Evolution ! They are desperate to get their theory started they dont have time to think about where the things that existed before evolution started came from. Where they allways there, and so are eternal things. Or did they come from nothing. Which is it? Or did something else that is eternal create all of them and was about to unleash His or Its amazing Plan. "No this is the creator theory , we must not look into that. It ... Ali, alot of topics there, and I am not sure I can deal with all of them. Natural selection applies only to biological populations. How life came to be, how the organic came from the inorganic, may or may not be a question of natural selection, but that is up in the air. It is certainly being studied and debated, but for details, you need someone more qualified than I to debate on that. But once you have entities that have genetic material and that reproduce then you have evolution. Biological entities, unlike cars, do make themselves and they transmit genetic material from generation to generation. No reproduction, no evolution. So I don't think the analogy is good. The... Damn. Setting aside issues of textual literalism, I think it is this that most bothers many Christians, the idea that categories are not perfect, that things never just "are" but are always in a state of becoming. Since you seem to be quite courteous, I'll return the favor. AliMuslim said:Ever heard of Gravitational theory? Aviation theory? Try jumping of a skyscraper & see how theoretical gravitation really is. Try denying that planes can fly. Maybe this part, which I copied from wikipedia, might be helpful: wikipedia on Theory said: Djiezes, I must say I admire your persistence... Bravo! I think they still don't know why bumble bees fly. oops , it was just a myth..................... Bumblebee myths A bumblebee in flight Enlarge A bumblebee in flight [edit] Flight According to 20th century folklore, the laws of aerodynamics prove that the bumblebee should be incapable of flight, as it does not have the capacity (in terms of wing size or beat per second) to achieve flight with the degree of wing loading necessary, and yet, not being aware of scientists proving it cannot fly, the bumblebee succeeds. The origin of this myth has been difficult to pin down with any certainty: John McMasters recounted an anecdote about an unnamed Swiss aerodynamicist at a dinner party who performed some rough calculations and concluded, presumab... Djiezes I have just actually read the bit about evolution being fact not theory. Its quite hilarious. "Evolution is fact." they say. Strange why did the pick the word evolution and not say variation, or even devolution, or even a simple word like change. Was it by chance? No its because they have a proposition that they want to make and so try to add some credibility to the proposition so as to make it look credible. Its as simple as that. Anyone who is impartial would say that what we observe with genes is an occurance of change. Then they would investigate what kind of change it is? Not immediatly call it Evolution because they are in love with 'The theory of Evolution' and want to make it 'Fact'. It gets more funny. They want to pretend that evolution is actually observable just like testing planes is. So they say oh yes, theory means its fact becuase there is aviation theory. But aviation theory is testable, evolution is not. And i dont mean the change due to genes here, i mean the theory of evolution. So its all just a play on words so as to fool people that this fictional theory is true. When it is actually fiction and not fact. So in tryig hard to convince themselves (in the first instance i think, because even they are starting to have doubts) and others (in the second instance) they decide to miss label things and then start to play on words. I've seen this happen before and e... Also the bit about creationists actually made no sense. I dont they knew what they were talking about. They just have to do their ritual of rediculing the Creator theory, just in case anyone starts taking it seriously. So like this nice saying goes: "In professing to be clever, they turned themselves into children". Now that is Devolution ! Djiezes thanks for telling me to read the article. I didnt think it was that bad, but it is. It shows only the desparation the evolutionists are in. Ofcourse this is only in my opinion. And yes i do accept that i maybe wrong. And yes i am proud to be a creationists. is someone who sees two theories presented to them: 1) Dont talk about how things started (taboo area). Also dont ask how reproductive systems came about (cant answer that i'm afraid). But look we can think of an answer of how things after that came about. Yes it was chance and random trials and lo and behold you got lots of nice species. One lays eggs, one sees from long distance, another give us milk, others are very tasty, others can see in the night .... Chance is amazing. It can do amazing things. And things dont disintegrate with time. No sirr yee. they only evolve upwards or sideways. So a motorbike may become a bicycle after a million or so ... opps, should be ' ie someone who sees two theories...' And the second theory presented to us (although admittedly not presented well at all unfortunately - so i must admit this short coming in creationists, or religious people in general in this age), is: 2) That All things came from one Eternal thing that has allways been there and never not been there (Eternal). And that this Thing because It was not Created nor Designed means no Limits have been placed on it. So it is Unlmited ie unlimited in power, strength, knowledge, intellegence, sight, hearing, time, capability, speed, speech, language, life, etc etc. So this Being is able to design and make things and live Its life how It wants. And as a result has made many creatures and sent them pro... So which choice should we make? Theory 1) Effectively implies no need for a Creator, and everything came randomly, and cannot answer how things came about at the start ie whether things came from nothing or something, and if something what is that something. ie a limited theory with limited scope. But which tries to explain away the need for a Creator. And also its main principle of evolution is contrary to observations in reality that things disintegrate (devolve) with time rather than evolve. So it doesnt agree with reality. Yet its advocants dont care. They stubbornly persist in believeing in it. ie they are stupid, in my opinion ofcourse. Theory 2) A logical theory that makes a lot of ... n2sooners you hit the nail on the head when you said He says evolution is fact and then goes on to describe adaptation.Couldnt have said it better. But when one is on a mission force brainwashing oneself, these kinds of things are easily overlooked. I didnt think i would agree with you on much n2. I am warmly surprised. Maybe this is evolution man??? Lets actually define what evolution really is then. Just to make things crystal clear. Evolution is when every year newer and better models of cars appear on the street. This doesnt happen by chance or by time alone. It happens through dedicated and focussed work of many people. You need to have the designers, and planners, the admin dudes, the factory people, the transportation people, the insurance people (no doubt), the tax man even, before these things evolve to higher 'species' of car. Without this effort cars devolve and dissentegrate. So even if species did evolve it would mean that there must be an external source driving that change purposefully and with awareness of what the new... So without a mind and a driving force behind things, evolution does not happen. What happens then is devolution (or dissintegration). So saying that chance does this effort is quite some imagination. Its like seeing the obvious and deliberately wanting to dismiss it away as quickly as possible. No its chance, it must be chance. Not Creator Being. No not creator being. We wont accept that. We are against that. This is how we think. We wont think any other way. We are anti God , and this is how we are. We will not be moved. The mind of arrogant stubborn people ! Ali, you are not showing good faith here. You are using concepts that either don't exist in evolutionary theory or you are using them inappropriately ("devolution" or the adaptation/evolution distinction). Worse than that you are then ignoring correction and getting stroppy about it. If you want to criticise the theory of evolution that is fine, but you need to attack what it is, not what you want it to be. How do you mean tpq, please elaborate on this . n2, wait a minute, adaptation has a different meaning, more than just change. So thinking about it i think i will stick to using the word change or variation. The evolutionists use 'adaptation' with a specific meaning, ie adapting to the environment. Which also may not be true. If you think it is true , can you or anyone else give some examples? thanks ali wildcat, Well thanks. But this is where my persistence ends. Feel free to take my place. Ali, I'm glad you took the advice of reading the clipped page. Someone commenting on another clip, gave you the advice to try keeping within the 2000 character limit in responding to comments. That might be a good idea. I don't plan to tackle all your misconceptions, scattered over 11 comments, so I'll leave you with some reading material. If you're truly trying to comprehend what evolution is about (& there's some work to be done there), you'll be happy with the following reading material: On evolution(ary theory) (& facts too): * [url=http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/d#a485]Charles Darwin[... thank you. Could i ask you to checkout www.evolutiondeceit.com and tell me what you think? regards, ali By the way Djiezes , if you really understand and are convinced of what you believe in you should be able to explain it and argue for it yourself rather than just refer to it. So far i have seen little argument to back up your beliefs. Ali Rather than shotgunning evolutionary theory with a blast of scattered arguments and hoping something hits, pick one thing that bothers you and we'll go with it. That keeps things focused and organized. Here's my thing. In all honesty, I think the critique of the science that you (and that website) are making is a trojan horse hiding religious issues with evolutionary theory. Now, in the US, the theological engine that drives anti-evolutionism is Biblical literalism, the idea that the Bible (or some transltion thereof) is literally true--the stories in the Bible are not metaphors and subject to interpretation, but are point-by-point recountings of actual physical events (the U... Still going. I hope none of man's theories have to go to test at the pearly gates. It would be a long wait  AliMuslim said:Well, since you're spamming the evolutiondeceit site here almost on a daily basis, I've checked it already out over a month ago. My thoughts on that are close to what tpq just said. It seems like an attempt to use religion and metaphysics as an argument against evolutionary theory. It's full of logical fallacies, distorted facts, half truths, lies & by now long refuted arguments. To summarize: it provides no arguments against evolution. AliMuslim said: tpq, thanks for your post. I agree, things must be taken one step at at time. Sorry for my multi shot outburst I was trying to brain dump all my thoughts about this subject, so that i would see where that lead me. ie just wanted to verify my thoughts on this issue. But i think it may be of use to others also to see. I think the best place to start is for each of us to state what they mean by evolution. Because we may each have a different meaning of it in our minds and so effectively talking about two separate things. And that would not be helpful. Having defined what we mean by evolution we can then go on to answer your question of why it is not compatible with the religious viewpoint. S... Djiezes be more specific. Dont just say it has fallacies and logical fallacies. Be bold enough to state them please so that they can be addressed. Can you not contemplate that it is you who has misunderstood things? You should allow for this possiblity in your mind. Otherwise we become biased and stubborn minded. The best person in my mind is somehow who can see the other viewpoint, present its arguments for it and then go back to his viewpoint and compare arguments for and against. This way it becomes ballanced and one can seek the Truth about a subject rather than simple defend his present positon no matter what. This is what i like about Islam. It tells you to present the arguments for ... More specifics: Well, there's this page (dd 2001) that points to different fabrications the author (Harun Yahya) made. This is a more extensive (& skeptical) article on the Harun Yahya's works & argumentative style. This is also a very decent & thorough article on Islamic Creationism and BAV (Yahya's Creationism organization) There's more; do a google search for "Harun Yahya", which is just a pseudonym, so also try using his real name "Adnan Oktar" [ur... Thanks Djiezes, this is much better. Now I can check and look at each issue. This is much better. ali Evolution in general is "change through time." Biological evolution, which is the objectionable kind, is "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" (or some variation thereof) I pulled the following from the TalkOrigins Archive page "What is Evolution?" It has a discussion of technical vs popular deifnitions of evolution that might be worth looking at. Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists @ Ali: "They continued to evolve randomly..." "The key thing in my explaination of description of evolution is that there is no controller of evolution. Its purely random... " Ali, you obviously have not taken the advice given to you and read up on this, continuing instead to infect the forum with what amounts to spam. If you had read the clip, and the sources recommended to you, you would know that evolution is NOT random, for crying out loud. Evolution is anything but random. The MUTATIONS are random, and natural selection acts on the entire gene pool. Nature acts on the gene pool, favoring certain mutations, or weeding them out, or leaving them unchanged. THIS is not a random proc... @ Ali: from the article that Djiezes linked to "When BAV realized that scientists and scientific organizations were publicly opposing its campaign, it responded by trying to intimidate the members of our commission and TUBA, accusing them of being communists, Maoists, atheists, and separatists." Nice organisation you're supporting there, Ali. I think you just lost your credibility, along with that of Yahya.....well, actually, he never had any..... tpq, you say that your defninition of evolution is a change through time. So does this change lead to better species ie improvment or does it lead to to disintegration. From observation in reality the Change that we witness is only disintegration. So how can anyone say that the change is the other way round? This is mind boggling really. They go against what reality is telling them. lonely planet, thanks for your comments. From real observations of reality, nature acts to make things disentegrate. Not to enhance and produce new species. A bike left outside in the rain for 10 years is disentigrated by nature. Or does it turn into a helicoptor? Ali No, by "evolution" you mean Darwinian evolution which is "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" (or some variation thereof)." Your argument that all change is disintegration is demonstrably incorrect. Living things grow, crystals form, simple rules can give rise to very complex structures. I think your argument is derived from a common US fundamentalist Christian argument that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. This argument relies on confusing thermodynamic entropy with the popular understanding of entropy as "disorder". tpq thankyou for that but can you elaborate more on : "This argument relies on confusing thermodynamic entropy with the popular understanding of entropy as "disorder"." please. I have studied entropy and thermodynamics. Cool. I have studied evolution, so we are in good shape. Living things are not closed systems, nor is life on earth. The energy lost from the systems are replaced. Energy enters from the Sun or from the consumption of other living things. Things like bicycles falling apart is not due to the 2nd law, but due to oxidation and consumption (energy transfer) by bacteria. Sure a little energy with each transfer, but it is a symptom, not a cause. tpq , can you actually contemplate there being a Superior Being that Created everything, or are you unabel to contemplate this possiblity? I can. And I have said elsewhere that the existence or nonexistence of such a being is not scientifically testable. Science is a limited set of tools for understanding physical phenomena, not metaphysics. I have plenty of beliefs that are metaphysical and not subject to scientific proof. Everybody does, including scientists--beliefs about human nature, morality, etc. These beliefs often direct scientific research, but cannot be allowed to determine the results. And is evolution testable? If so tell me a test for it? From this i think i can better understand your defnintion of it. So far you have just told me that evolution is a change. But this is not evolution, is it? Oops, I think I broke the mouse. I hope the real explanation for life isn't this long. I'd like to spend some more time in heaven. @ Ali. Is creationism testable ? If so tell me a test for it ? Is God testable ? If so tell me a test for it ? (Just for the record, I do believe in God) My point was that tpq dismisses contemplating about God Almighty because of testability, yet he happly contemplates evolution even though it too is untestable. Do you see? My point is not everything is testable, including creationism. Yes, but the issue is not everything that is not testable gets dismissed. There is more to it. Atheists just try to dismiss the Creator using the not testable concept as if no one realises that the Creator is not testable. And as if that being not testable means you cant say anything about anything relating to it. They are confused people in my view. If you look at the link tpq put about evolution definition, it says scientists are confused about what it is, because in my view it doesnt make sense. And being not testable it makes it even harder to make sense of it. No Ali. My point was that many things are not subject to scientific testing. That doesn't not mean they don't exist or can't be contemplated. If you wish an honest exchange, please don't misrepresent what I say. Biological evoution--"a change in the gene pool of a population over time"--is an observable fact. The theory of natural selection, which is what popularly called "evolution," is the explanatory theory for evolution. And, yes, it is testable. tpq, sorry if i appeared to misrepresent you, that is not my intention. You say evolution is testable, give us an example of this testablility please. tpq , can you not see also the vagueness in the defnintions you quote: Biological evolution = A change. Why is a change called evolution? Evolution means going up, improvment, etc. Its the opposite of disintegration or devoution. Yet for the word change you choose evolution . Why?? Surely this either bias or a misunderstanding of the dictionary meaning of the word evolution. Equating it with mere change. Then you say "The theory of natural selection, which is what popularly called "evolution," is the explanatory theory for evolution." What does that actually mean? The way it is coming out tpq, its as if you have doubts about evolution and you dont want to elaborate in full in case your doubt about it surfaces for all to see. I think evolution is on its way to become dead and burried. The question is what will takes its place? Your dismissing evolution with the non testable concept just like you claim atheists dismiss the creator. You're contradicting yourself. Not so Sohil. I am happy to talk about evolution even though to me there is no evidence it is testable. But for atheist they cannot talk about the Creator viewpoint because the testability issue affects them. And they flag it up as soon as you bring creationism in. I'm saying your argument against Evolution has no basis. You claim it's not testable, well neither is creationism. Not to ridicule your beliefs or anything, but the idea of a magic fairy creating everything one by one is a bit plausible on my part. And yes I do know that the video is inaccurate. Well do you actually know what my argument against evolution is? If you think that it is testability then you dont know it. Although hold on, we need to define testability here otherwise we can get confused. What is testabilty regarding creationism and testability regarding evolution. And i think i am wrong to say it is not testability as regards my argument against evolution. Testability, in the sense that you dont see it happening in front of us is a major part of my argument. Sorry. Proving existence of the Creator doesnt need testability, it is just simple logic: http://groups.msn.com/OxfordIslam/proofofcreator.msnw Basically if there is no Creator then everything comes from nothing, and that is impossible, logically. So there must be something that all things come from. Simple Hmm ok, so where did the Creator come from (according to your argument) ? Ali Let me clarify something. I say evolution is "a change in the gene pool of a population over time." You say evolution is "going up, improvment, etc. Its the opposite of disintegration or devoution." Since you obviously want the definition to be the second one, am I correct in assuming the first is inoffensive? No tpq, the first is unclear and mislabeled. A change can be downward as well as upward. So why label it as upward? No, it's not mislabeled, and it is very clear. It is the basic scientific definition. Remember, biological evolution is,as I have said before non-directional. We are biologically speaking no "better" or more "complex" than dinosaurs or kangaroos. But if your objection is simply one of semantics rather than concepts, we can call it something else--darwinism or DM ("descent with modification") if you like. In the Origin of the Species Darwin didn't even use the term "evolution." he talked about "descent with modification." What about the testability issue tpq? How is evolution testable? By the way when a caterpillar changes into a butterfly , is that evolution? when a caterpillar changes into a butterfly , is that evolution?No. It is not "a change in the gene pool of a population over time." I am sensing some difficulty here. How is evolution testable?Which I understand as "how are observations of changes in the gene pool of a population through time testable?" By observation. Seriously. Or are you asking if the theory of natural selection is testable? That's a different question. First let's get the definition of evolution straightened out. Please do Would pointing out that the definition of biological evolution is simply "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" do any good? tpq how come the unerstanding of evolution has changed from one where species evolved with time from lower to higher forms in a random way, to one which is more low key, being just a change in the gene pull? Do you have an explanation for this change in definition , as it were? That was never the scientific definition. Darwin's original phrasing was for example "descent with modification." It was called evolution later. The concept preceded the word--as often happens. By lower and higher forms, do you mean some sort of biological complexity, or is it "the Great Chain of Being, (which is a religious concept)? If we evolve it won't be into "higher" human, but simply humans adapted to different conditions. While changes in individual genes in individual organisms are random (e.g., mutation), changes in the gene pool of a population are generally not. tpq why do you think the general public have one understanding of evolution and you have another? I am not after who is right and who is wrong. Just after whey this difference exists. The difference between tpq62 and the general public is that he has actually learned about evolution from legitimate sources, and therefore understands it as evolutionary biologists like myself do. The general public has been taught (or not taught) some brief lesson about evolution in high school biology class by an education major, who doesn't understand it him/herself. There are no "missing links". Have you seen the human fossil record? I know someone who's held it in her hands. EVOLUTION HAS BEEN OBSERVED MANY TIMES! Farmers constantly have to change and increase pesticides because the populations of insects evolve resistance to them. Farmers and herders have bred plants and animals f... Hi mwillecoevo. Thanks for your post. My aim in this is to show people the big flaws in the prevalent understanding of evolution. The one that most people understand (what i call the Big Evolution theory) The understanding that a minority of scientists seem now to have is , as you say, not public knowledge, which is a pitty. And I am not worried about it because it just stands for variation and adaptation rather than the Big Evolution idea of one species derived from another species etc. Maybe tpq didnt quite understand what i was intent on , and maybe i was too emotional in stating my case, because i detest the big evolution theory. Hope my message is clear now. thanks ali Which drops us right back into the "what is a species?" question--which have already gone over, have we not? If you want to argue against popular understandings of evolution, fine. Hell, I'll join you. But I thought you wanted to argue against evolution as understood by Darwin and succeeding scientists. I took a quick look at the page that is referenced with this article, and very much enjoyed the following comment: Human beings are not descended from gorillas or chimpanzees This is a rather foolish idea that creationists like to use to discredit the theory of evolution. They say "Evolution teaches us that our great-great-great-grandparents were monkeys. How ridiculous. Ho ho ho". We are not descendants of apes - we are apes.
Some people still don't get it : "We are Homo sapiens, you can consider yourself a primate, however I don't." - zoner, alt.atheism If we are not ape... tpq, yes you are right. My contest is with the populist undestanding. The non populist is just a minority view and so unimportant in my eyes. As to what is a species, for me a chicken is different from a fish. A human is different from a monkey. I dont think its too hard to know what a species is. I dont know why you have confusion over this. It would be interesting to know. Your view of evolution does not seem to extend to cross 'species' development, so you should not have a problem with defining it. If you do then it would be interesting to hear. Best regards ali schreibe, hi there, but i dont agree with the logic of the comments you posted. Pick one and lets go over the logic of it. This way we may understand why creationists have an opposition to evolution. regards ali Ali So your argument isn't with the theory of natural selection as argued by Darwin and his successors? Because that is all I am presenting here. You need to understand this. I've already defined a species. Here is part of what I said. "Why are a horse and a donkey different species, but a great dane and a chihuahua not? Wikipedia actually has a fair discussion of this. You don't need to read it all but you can see how fluid the concept of species is. A standard definition is reproductive isolation. If two populations cannot produce viable offspring, they are not the same species." Does reproductive isolation work for you as a definition? Sorry I cannot format this properly as, fo... Thanks tqp. If you means strains of the same type of donkey as one species i think that is fine. I assume its just like saying oranges and satsumas and tangerines are roughly the same species, or one may be able to say variants of the same species. If this is what you mean by evolution then that is fine with me i think. But you also argue that this is what Darwin seems to have believed. Yet what we here from the popular world is something else. How come? regards ali We can go with the popular definition if you want. What is it? My definition is simple and broad at the same time. Based on sight. If it looks very different its a different species. If it looks similar to another species then it is the same species but only a variant. So a tree is different from a horse which is different from an orange which is different from a star which is different from a bird. But a donkey is similar to a horse which is also similar to an ass (if thats the right spelling!) so they are, or maybe, the same species. But what does your definition actually mean (reproductive isolation) and how big is its scope? ie just animals? etc thanks ali Evolution, or a portion of it at least, states, in a nutshell, that given enough time, slight mutations in an organism's genetic structure (DNA) will cause the organism to change physically (grow wings, see better, breath on land, walk upright, etc.). Natural Selection will then bring about one of two possibilities. If the mutation decreases the organism's chances of survival it will most likely die, preventing it from mating and passing on the mutation. If, on the other hand, the mutation increases the organism's chances of survival it will most likely live long enough to mate, possibly passing on the mutation (I say possibly because it depends on which DNA the offspring inherits from ea... Evolution, or a portion of it at least, states, in a nutshell, thatNot sure if it is germane to your final point but this is very crude. Slight mutations generally mean slight changes (i.e., no sudden mutation for wings, Saturday morning cartoons aside) although I suppose that could be a remote possibility. More usually what you have is selection acting upon a preexisting range of variation caused by relatively minor mutations (e.g., among humans--variations in eye colour, skin colour, hair c... "no sudden mutation for wings"The key words I used are "given enough time." Evolutionists speculate that bats are the descendants of the same ancestors as mammals such as shrews, mice, and rats. During some point between the period before and after bats their ancestors would have had to go from a four legged mammal to a two legged, two winged mammal "But the key thing is differential reproduction." "Natural selection is the evolutionary process by which favorable traits that are heritable become more common in successive generations of a population of reproducing organisms, and unfavorable traits that are heritable become less common." - Wikiped... Sorry. Should continue . . . Three years old, two litters, and six offspring, and still no sign of our brown and white, short, curly, mutated gene? Not looking to good. Let's look at Classical Genetics. If the mutated gene is recessive (which it must be), then the male must be pure brown white (rr) and the female pure black (RR), resulting in offspring that are hybrid black (Rr). If these six hybrid black Guinea Pigs breed only with each other (highly unlikely), then the offspring will be 25% pure black (RR), 50% hybrid black (Rr), and 25% pure brown white (rr). How are these traits unfavorable? Ultimately, making survival harder.No. Not necessarily. I hate to repeat myself but differential reproduction can also be through though mechanisms other than survival until breeding, e.g. sexual selection. Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of genes in a population. Non-advantageous genes could still well be there just in decreased numbers, ready to be selected for again should conditions change. Differential survival is simply one mechanism, albeit an important one, by which differential reproduction is achieved. I don't if your argument requires that survival be the only mechanism, so make sure you are not creating... So you would prefer that I say, "Natural Selection will then bring about one of two possibilities. If the mutation decreases the organism's chances of matting, it (the trait) will die out. If, on the other hand, the mutation increases the organism's chances of matting, it (the trait) will be passed on." Is that better? ~* {FS} *~ A third possibility is most usual one--both kinds of trait will be passed on regardless, just in greater or lesser frequencies within the population (e.g., Darwin's finches and their beak sizes). Is this central to your argument? My main point is that mutations are never beneficial, always neutral, harmful, or fatal. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all things, when left to their own devices, will only progress further into decay, forbids anything else. Scientist have never seen a mutation benefit an organism as they claim it has in the past. Let me state it another way in regards to genetic information. Evolutionists claim that simple forms life can changes into more complex forms of life through random mutations of DNA, thus adding new information to the organism's genetic structure and allowing it to develop with a new phenotype (physical characteristic). An example would be a rodent-like a... Have I stated anything incorrectly?Yes, most crucially the Second Law of Thermodynamics. But first, mutations are good, bad or anything. They just are. By the time we know whether a particular mutation is beneficial under certain circumstances, it is no longer a mutation, but simply genetic variation within a population. The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states that all things, when left to their own devices, will only progress further into decay, forbids anything else.The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not say this at all. The rest of your post seems to depend on this point, so I won't go into it, although I will caution you are revert... The slow production of wings is not possible, and this is why. If in my example the rodent's front legs were to, over the course of many years, slowly change into wings, it would at some point reach a middle ground, its front limbs being exactly half leg and half wing. At this point the animal still cannot fly (otherwise it would have complete wings that are not in the midst of changing) but at the same time it has lost its ability to run (for the purpose of escaping predators). Without the ability to avoid predators the animal will become extinct. Now let us just suppose our mutating animal does manage to survive until its wings are fully developed (though how this is possible is beyond... What, in your own words, does the Second Law of Thermodynamics say? ~* {FS} *~ "Mutations are good, bad or anything. They just are."How do you know this? Have you ever seen or heard of a MODERN mutation being good? I never have. So if you know something I don't, please share. And please remember, fact is "a truth known by actual experience or observation." The fact of gravity exists; anyone can see it work. How it works, however, does not need to fully understood or even known at all. Beneficial mutations are not fact; they have never been observed in the here and now. Also, what about my argument regarding information? Two questions, please give two answers. ~* {FS} *~ As for my misunderstanding the meaning of the Second Law ofYou have the right law, it's a standard Creationist argument. If you go back through this very long thread it has come up before. You can probably find my phrasing there. The Creationist/evolutionist debate has been going on long enough that in many it is like the old men and their jokes. The arguments and responses are standardized enough that they should just be numbered and we yell the numbers. The slow production of wings is not possible, and this is why. If I messed up the formatting above. "The slow production of wings is not possible, and this is why." should be in quotes. Damn. Not sure what happened, but ME: "Mutations are good, bad or anything. They just are."Oh, that was a typo. It should have read "Mutations are NOT good, bad or anything. They just are." Would you agree that many animals posses hiereditary instinct? The knowledge of how to do something without ever being taught it, but rather knowing it from the time of birth. ~* {FS} *~ That certain behaviors are hardwired? Sure, I have no problem with that. So you would agree that this information (behavior) is contained within the species gene pool. ~* {FS} *~ I see no wild leaps of logic in the idea that the genes for a specie's genetically-determined behavior would be found within the species gene pool. In fact I have to confess I can't see how it would be otherwise. BTW "Information" and "genetically-determined behavior" are not synonyms. "Information" is too vague a term to be useful in this context. "'Information' and 'genetically-determined behavior' are not synonyms." Synonyms, no. Related, yes. DNA is simply the body's blueprint. A cell could be compared to a house and its construction crew. The DNA is the house's blueprints. The construction crew is limited to building a house and not a mansion because the blueprints do not tell them how, they do not have enough information to do it. Now let me define a mutation. A mutation is due to either a mistake in the code of a cell's DNA or damage to the code of a cell's DNA. Now suppose once a day the blueprints for the house are copied and used to build another house somewhere else. (This is what happens just before a cell divide... The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "all systems in the universe proceed toward increasing disorder and decreasing complexity." - Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto. This is what I have been taught all my life through both Jr. High and High School. It is the only paraphrase for the law that I have ever seen. I have heard this explanation of the law used by both Creationists and Evolutionists alike. My personal argument as to why this law disproves evolution was formed after I read an evolutionary defence related to this topic, in which the above meaning of the law was stated as true. ~* {FS} *~ No, the Second Law does not say that. It is a very specific mathematical statement about the dispersion of energy ("entropy") in a closed system. There is no room debate here. Your statement is factually incorrect. Now, your next point. The houses and blueprints. One of the problems you are having is you you keep trying to translate evolutionary concepts into something you understand, and then critiquing the analogy instead of the actual topic under debate--evolution, genetically determined behaviour. It's getting so I cringe everytime you say "Let's suppose... " Do you have an objection to real case studies and real evidence instead hypothetical examples and rather laboured analogie... My reason for using the above analogy is to show why random, unguided mistakes in an organism's genetic code can only have a neutral or harmful effect. Studies have never shown otherwise, so why should I be expected to believe they can? Even scientific attempts to force a beneficial mutation have never been successful. Another problem I believe evolution cannot explain is the presence of instinct. How can an unintelligent animal know something it was never taught? Acquired characteristics and learned abilities cannot be inherited. Studies have also shown that language is not instinctual and must be taught, meaning it could not have evolved. Thirdly, macro-evolution requires thousands... You have three points 1) You are having a problem with mutation as the primary source of genetic variation in a population. Let's pick a real-world case: human variation--skin color. How did human variation in skin color come about? 2) You have a problem with the idea that motor and other behaviours can be genetically determined. I don't know why this is a problem for you. Is it you that you see some sort of ontological difference between physical structures that do things and physical structures that cause behaviour? 3) Macro-evolution: by this you mean speciation--the change from one species into another, right? I think this can be folded in with point 1. Regardless of the made... 1) I'm not talking about variation (changing of skin color, eye color, hair color, etc.) I'm talking about the sudden DEVELOPMENT of something that NEVER WAS THERE in the first place. 2) You keep misunderstanding what I'm saying. IF Macro-evolution were real, the concept of having a reptile develop wings and become a bird and then lean to fly, though rather far fetched in my opinion, would not be at all impossible. But how did this LEARNED ability become INSTINCT (unlearned)? 3) Now that I have better explained what I meant in 1), I will state again: Assuming that beneficial mutations (not variation) do occur (which scientists cannot prove) and assuming that their is only a 50% chance o... 1) I'm not talking about variation (changing of skin color, eye color, hair color, etc.) I'm talking about the sudden DEVELOPMENT of something that NEVER WAS THERE in the first place.Right. You are talking about the generation of genetic variation. Mutations are how variations are introduced into a population. White skin colour is a mutation. 2) But how did this LEARNED ability become INSTINCT (unlearned)?It doesn't, because it was never learned. The genetic basis of the motor behavior evolved in tandem with the genetic basis of the motor limbs. There will be no selection for gliding if there is no gliding behaviour. As an example, in sexual select... 1) No, no, no, NO! You're still stuck in the same rut. “Even if we didn’t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it—just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.” - James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), “Genetic Effects of Radiation,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. ... The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that "all systems in the universe proceed toward increasing disorder and decreasing complexity." - Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D., Astronomy, University of Toronto. "No, the Second Law does not say that. . . Your statement is factually incorrect."That is not my statement, it is Dr. Hugh Ross's. Are you saying that you know more than a man with a Ph.D? Rather arrogant if you ask me. ~* {FS} *~ That is not my statement, it is Dr. Hugh Ross's. Are you saying that you know more than a man with a Ph.D? Rather arrogant if you ask me.Oh for crying out loud . Here. What is thermodynamics? I wouldn't try that "knowing more than a Ph.D." trope again. Given your arguments against scientists, it comes across as opportunistic. Mutations. You have given me a string of out of context quotes, presumably a web site dump. From this I am supposed to conclude...what? That genetic variation doesn't come from mutations? Again, you're not listening. “Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.” - Ernst Mayr, “Evolutionary Challenges to the Mathematical Interpretation of Evolution,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, proceedings of a symposium held at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology, 25–26 April, 1966 (Philadelphia: The Wistar Institute Press, 1967), p. 50 “Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event, ...” - Ayala, p. 63. Variation is caused by mutations, I WILL NOT DENY THAT. But Macro-evolution require hundreds of mutations to cause hundre... Again, you're not listening.That's because you aren't speaking. You are cutting and pasting out of context quotes from a website (this one, in fact creationscience.com) and then leaving me to guess what you mean. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ Variation is caused by mutations, I WILL NOT DENY THAT. But Macro-evolution require hundreds of mutations to cause hundreds of varitions in just the right order."Varation is caused by mutations, I WILL NOT DENY THAT." At last. The rest of the statement is speculative assumption--you are saying that because you think that is just the way it HAS to be. It... |
View the Top Clips from November 26, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
|
, what do I do now?!"
