Rewriting Evolution ~ Darwin was wrong
Options
Comments
-
havent read this thread, just wondered, and excuse my ignorance...but how does a muslim believe in evolution and Allah at the same damn time?
@Kai
how are the two mutually exclusive?
evolution doesn't explain the origin of life it explains how life changes once it is here. pretty easy to believe in both for me
I mean, if you believe in evolution you believe in the big bang theory and there being no ? , right?
Or do you believe in ? that created life to evolve naturally? -
Good questions brother.......
? created man in his own image..................
-
DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Oh yeah where did the first atom even come from? It just popped out of thin air and exploded? Lol. Evolution, natural selection, Big Bang got more holes in it than Swiss cheese. The pride of man really brings them down to a low level of being and thinking. Tragic.
Atoms are composed of electrons, then protons and neutrons which break up into quarks and gluons.
Subatomic particles come into existence at the planck scale from quantum space time turbulence. There, energy is allowed to decay into subatomic particles.
Your move. -
havent read this thread, just wondered, and excuse my ignorance...but how does a muslim believe in evolution and Allah at the same damn time?
@Kai
how are the two mutually exclusive?
evolution doesn't explain the origin of life it explains how life changes once it is here. pretty easy to believe in both for me
I mean, if you believe in evolution you believe in the big bang theoryand there being no ? , right?
Or do you believe in ? that created life to evolve naturally?
basically at the bolded
Really.......
Islam shares the creation myth of Judaism and Christianity, spaced out over six periods. The Islamic creation account, like the Hebrew one, involves Adam and Eve as the first parents, living in paradise. As in the Hebrew story, ? warns Adam and Eve not to eat fruit from a certain tree, but they do anyway, earning expulsion from Paradise.
-
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
This was explained here:If you would have continued reading the article in New Science, you would know that the writer expresses his belief that the tree should be swapped for the image of a web to explain evolution.
It is not to say that evolution is false but that evolution has to be depicted in another way other than a tree.
Read here..
From tree to web
As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started
to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993,
some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life
was more like a web.
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Why a "web" as opposed to a "tree"?
Darwin assumed
that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
-
Anyone who doesn't accept Evolution.
Might as well say Slavery doesn't exist. -
@kai......
Hey I'm not going literal....
As a matter of fact I am not even debating from a religious standpoint..........
I provided new scientific evidence that has been ignored..........
However.....
You could illuminate the Muslim creation story & how it includes the theory of evolution.?.?.?.?
-
LOL.....
I don't want to get embarrassed......
11:7
Sahih International
And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water - that He might test you as to which of you is best in deed. But if you say, "Indeed, you are resurrected after death," those who disbelieve will surely say, "This is not but obvious magic."
-
"For much of the past 150 years, biology has largely concerned itself
with filling in the details of the tree. "For a long time the holy
grail was to build a tree of life," says Eric Bapteste, an
evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in
Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was
within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces
by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that
the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. "We have no
evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality," says Bapteste.
That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of
biology needs to change."
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
This was explained here:If you would have continued reading the article in New Science, you would know that the writer expresses his belief that the tree should be swapped for the image of a web to explain evolution.
It is not to say that evolution is false but that evolution has to be depicted in another way other than a tree.
Read here..
From tree to web
As it became clear that HGT was a major factor, biologists started
to realise the implications for the tree concept. As early as 1993,
some were proposing that for bacteria and archaea the tree of life
was more like a web.
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Why a "web" as opposed to a "tree"?
Darwin assumed
that descent was exclusively "vertical", with organisms passing
traits down to their offspring. But what if species also routinely
swapped genetic material with other species, or hybridised with
them? Then that neat branching pattern would quickly degenerate into
an impenetrable thicket of interrelatedness, with species being
closely related in some respects but not others.
We now know that this is exactly what happens. As more and more
genes were sequenced, it became clear that the patterns of
relatedness could only be explained if bacteria and archaea were
routinely swapping genetic material with other species--often
across huge taxonomic distances--in a process called horizontal
gene transfer (HGT).
http://postbiota.org/pipermail/tt/2009-February/004416.html
Exactly.......
A "web of life".......
Which differs from a "tree of life".......
By eliminating "common ancestors".......
Ironic that Darwin's destruction comes from @Oceanic biology...........
-
Can you explain the anatomy comparison of Lizard and Snakes???
Why the hell do flightless birds and human males with nipples exist??? -
Can you explain the anatomy comparison of Lizard and Snakes???
Why the hell do flightless birds and human males with nipples exist???
Go back to the Anti-Creationists thread with all that ? ...............
-
Exactly.......
A "web of life".......
Which differs from a "tree of life".......
By eliminating "common ancestors".......
Ironic that Darwin's destruction comes from @Oceanic biology...........
Show me how the common ancestor theory was abandoned.
It seems that the tree concept is to be abandoned and replaced with the web concept while evolutionary theory still stands; just re-worked.
-
It seems you're right and all the respectable Scientists are wrong.
Now, explain this
And how humans were created out of dirt. -
Interesting..
-
LOL.....
I don't want to get embarrassed......
11:7
Sahih International
And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water - that He might test you as to which of you is best in deed. But if you say, "Indeed, you are resurrected after death," those who disbelieve will surely say, "This is not but obvious magic."
i blame translations, cuz they can be misleading, the word ayyama does not mean day in th literal sense, it means stage or phase
Yes........
Translations are always posing problems with interpretations........
Any known problems surrounding the meaning of creation/إخلق ??????????????
23:14
Sahih International
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
-
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
bismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
In the name of ? , the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.
-
LOL.....
I don't want to get embarrassed......
11:7
Sahih International
And it is He who created the heavens and the earth in six days - and His Throne had been upon water - that He might test you as to which of you is best in deed. But if you say, "Indeed, you are resurrected after death," those who disbelieve will surely say, "This is not but obvious magic."
i blame translations, cuz they can be misleading, the word ayyama does not mean day in th literal sense, it means stage or phase
Yes........
Translations are always posing problems with interpretations........
Any known problems surrounding the meaning of creation/إخلق ??????????????
23:14
Sahih International
Then We made the sperm-drop into a clinging clot, and We made the clot into a lump [of flesh], and We made [from] the lump, bones, and We covered the bones with flesh; then We developed him into another creation. So blessed is Allah , the best of creators.
that verse is about embryonic development, what's your point
blessed is Allah , the best of creators.....................
-
Exactly.......
A "web of life".......
Which differs from a "tree of life".......
By eliminating "common ancestors".......
Ironic that Darwin's destruction comes from @Oceanic biology...........
Show me how the common ancestor theory was abandoned.
It seems that the tree concept is to be abandoned and replaced with the web concept while evolutionary theory still stands; just re-worked.
It is only 2 mins.........
http://youtu.be/-bMQkAqxNeE
-
Sahih International 41:9
Say, "Do you indeed disbelieve in He who created the earth in two days and attribute to Him equals? That is the Lord of the worlds."
-
I come across a lot of threads that I don't give a ? about and this has now topped my list
no offense TS -
I come across a lot of threads that I don't give a ? about and this has now topped my list
no offense TS
Clearly........... -
Ahhh where was I ????
Oh Yes...........
"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life
Early evolution without a tree of life?????
Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.
This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36
-
ShiveDreadz wrote: »Humans are apes, have been and always will be.
You gotta do your research.
Evolution is vast and difficult topic.
I can't sit there and tell you from 500 millions ago to the presents.
You know many species they are and were???
ok.. so where did all this life on this earth from man, animals, to plants, trees, etc., come from?
and dont you find it funny that everything in and on this earth is linked and needed eachother to live here? like if bee's, for instance, went extinct; life would drastically change.
us as humans, even the earth, need every animal that is here to maintain the earth.
almost like everything that is here, is 'meant' to be here, right? cuz if it has no reason, then it wouldnt be here, no?
so how does everything here perfectly fit together, by accident?
Going to continue reading thread, but just thought id coment on this here.
If everything on earth perfectly fit togethee, there wouldnt be extinct species. Do you know what percentage of species throughout earths history are extinct?
Educate yourself.
Thanks for reading brother.......
You make a great point about the math involved in evolution.......
There are several mathematicians that disagree with the probabilities of of the smallest self-replicating organism arising from pure random chance..........
" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209
"Cohen showed that the purely mathematical probability AGAINST that organism arising by pure chance is a number with (over) 180,000 zeroes after it (ie., 10 to the 180,000th power.) This is mind-boggling when we consider that superscript numbers, or "powers" tell how many zeroes are in a number.
When dividing superscript numbers, we subtract powers. Since there are 10 to the 80th power seconds in the evolutionary time-frame, there would have had to have been 10 to the 178,920th power random tries PER SECOND for purely random chance to accomplish creation of the SIMPLEST living organism. And that would only get the first organism. Mathematicians consider any probability with a power greater than 50 (that is, a number with 50 zeroes) to be truly "impossible."
Mad impossibilities connected to evolution...................
Educate yourself..................
-
It is only 2 mins.........
No, I'm talking about in the OP. Specifically in the article you're using to back up your argument. This youtube video has nothing to do with any of that. You wanted someone to address the OP and I'm doing it so let's not diverge from it. -
Fair enough........
This.......Ahhh where was I ????
Oh Yes...........
"The tree of life (TOL), as an organizing metaphor and concept, has been greatly challenged by the discovery of extensive horizontal gene transfer. While various attempts have been made to preserve the traditional TOL, other efforts are now focused on phylogenetic analysis and evolutionary reconstruction beyond the TOL. The articles in this special thematic series of Biology Direct demonstrate methodologically and conceptually new and constructive ways of working with and thinking about the TOL and its phylogenetic legacy. Whether these approaches modify or ultimately reject the TOL, they show the wealth of insight gained by thinking beyond a central icon of evolutionary biology."
http://www.biology-direct.com/series/tree_of_life
Early evolution without a tree of life?????
Life is a chemical reaction. Three major transitions in early evolution are considered without recourse to a tree of life. The origin of prokaryotes required a steady supply of energy and electrons, probably in the form of molecular hydrogen stemming from serpentinization. Microbial genome evolution is not a treelike process because of lateral gene transfer and the endosymbiotic origins of organelles. The lack of true intermediates in the prokaryote-to-eukaryote transition has a bioenergetic cause.
This article was reviewed by Dan Graur, W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene V. Koonin and Christophe Malaterre.
http://www.biology-direct.com/content/6/1/36
