The Evolution Conflict

waggindraggin said:
Biogenesis of cells is a whole different subject from natural selection with DNA. We can observe natural selection among cells, but we cannot observe cell biogenesis. There are some good ideas about what might have caused cells but no conclusions. Cells as we see them today are very complex, so its hard to guess at what forms gave rise to them. If they were simpler and more stable, then guessing would be simpler; but cells are unstable and always changing. It is thought that perhaps cells eventually developed from a replicating protein which grew into a large population of replicating proteins. A single protein can be very complicated and can be formed by simple environmental events, and its possible to replicate some proteins using lab methods. Its unlikely that we will ever be able to determine exactly what came before cells, if anything; but its extremely unlikely that cells just accidentally appeared without any previous long process. They are just too complicated to pop out of nowhere, so thats why its thought that they developed from a protein or some other very easily made form.
Click to expand...
Agreed, in that we haven't *yet* observed abiogenesis (in spite of the hype)...but that doesn't stop researchers from trying. Cells *are* far more complex than "building blocks" would imply.
 
Devils' Advocate said:
All great questions. Of which most we still don't have the answers. Doesn't mean the answers are not there. We just haven't figured them out yet. And when we do we may end up having to rewrite most of the biological sciences! Or not. It sure will be fascinating if/when we can crack this particular nut!
Click to expand...
As much as I would love this to be true, entrenched dogma will make it *very* difficult to overcome established dogma and advance any clarifications, particularly if that clarification means rewriting the script. It's all about the money...if your research doesn't conform to the party line, you don't get the grants (or the grants are cut off and you are publicly shamed, ruining your career). It's not about "truth," never has been.
 
I don't share your pessimism, Juan. Without a doubt, entrenched dogma does get in the way, as well as money for research issues. And yet there are still many, many scientists who will accept a change in belief structure when new facts override old. Science does manage to advance despite human frailities. One has only to look at how incredibly far we have come in just the past 200 years to see the evidence of that.
 
Mohsin said:
The Theory Of Evolution, presented by Charles Darwin says that life started as a result of chance and the living beings slowly evolved in different species. This theory thus denies that Adam(P.B.U.H) was the first man created by Allah(the all mighty God) and was sent to the earth. Thus it is in contradiction with both Quran and the Bible. History tells us that this theory had brought nothing but destruction of mankind, morality and even at some places denied the existance of God.

Please reffer to this book (The Disasters Darwinism Brought To Humanity) http://harunyahya.com/disaster1.php and see how this theory had caused devistation to the people.

The theory, when presented was denied by the scientests because it had no scientific evidence. It was only accepted by anti religious figures and later due to political advantages. However, modren day science has proved that life is too complicated to have been created by chance. Also, living beings cannot evolve from one being to another as otherwise there would have been many half evolved creatures around us. Thus all beings are created in their complete state by God.

Please reffer to this book(The Collapse of the Theory of Evolution ) http://harunyahya.com/evolution01.php to see how modern science had proved the theory wrong.

Now, my question is that since the theory of evolution is incorrect and have contradictions with both Quran and the Bible, thus conflicting religion, why do so many people believe in it? Why is it tought in schools and colleges? Why do many magazines and people of the scientific community defend this theory, and do you, being a religious person, believe in this thoery?
Click to expand...

This is a very old thread, but here's my two cents:
First scientists of the late 1800s weren't very scientific by today's standards. They only understood a very small amount of what we know today about genetics and biology. We know far more now about the genetic traces that link humans to apes, dogs to wolves, etc than they could have ever dreamed of. They were also men of their time, meaning steeped in religious thought, and the idea of evolution frightened them.
Second, that's because the Genesis story is completely unsupportable in every way, shape and form. It is borrowed mythology that contradicts its self almost immediately by stating that God created humans, and then the narrative mentions that God created Adam. If taken literally, which they shouldn't be, then based on scripture, Adam was not the first man and we are not all related to him. Adam and Eve's children married people that were not their siblings, and Cain went off into a world inhabited by someone.
Finally, why is it taught in school? Because it is the single most plausible theory about life on Earth, and is globally excepted. Creationism isn't because it is full of holes, subjective, and has no evidence that passes peer review (sorry, neither the Bible or the Quran are accurate or universally authoritative.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
socialleper said:
If taken literally, which they shouldn't be, then based on scripture, Adam was not the first man and we are not all related to him. Adam and Eve's children married people that were not their siblings, and Cain went off into a world inhabited by someone.
Click to expand...
I believe the scripture is correct. Adam was not the first man nor was Cain Adam's son. What most people miss is the huge gap between the first and second earth age. There is a thread created by one of our members that tends to bear this out. http://www.interfaith.org/community/threads/17697/ Keep in mind this thread is about people who had no prior knowledge of Christianity or the book of Genesis.
 
socialleper said:
It is borrowed mythology that contradicts its self almost immediately by stating that God created humans, and then the narrative mentions that God created Adam. If taken literally, which they shouldn't be ...
Click to expand...
I agree that the creation account in Genesis is a near universal mythology – there is much in common between the Creation in Genesis and Creation in Hindu scriptures – but I think the contradictions people see generally stem from lack of data with regard to text interpretation.

The Wellhousen or Documentary hypothesis identifies four interweaving strands or narrative sources in the Pentateuch. This is largely agreed on by scholars today. Once you understand that, then the contradictions disappear.
 
juantoo3 said:
So while changes at a genetic level *are* frequent, touting them to promote evolution is quite misleading. Far less than 1% of natural genetic changes account for anything that even begins to equate with evolution.

And that isn't even taking into account epigenetics...the part of the puzzle everyone seems to ignore.

Nature vs Nurture. :)
Click to expand...
I think I agree. Evolution requires many, many deaths, so its not like every mutation is good. Most of them are troublesome, like trying out new recipes without any prior experience often yields bad food.
 
Yes good mutations thrive...like white skin...no wonder us mutants don't like evolution. How about those 6 lady caver archeologists that just pulled the remains of a new link in the chain, eh? And the new exhibit in the Smithsonian has statues of various human incarnations... And where you can get a picture of what you would look like as cro magnum or whatever....
 
wil said:
Yes good mutations thrive...like white skin...no wonder us mutants don't like evolution. How about those 6 lady caver archeologists that just pulled the remains of a new link in the chain, eh? And the new exhibit in the Smithsonian has statues of various human incarnations... And where you can get a picture of what you would look like as cro magnum or whatever....
Click to expand...
You do realize white skin is an offshoot of albinism, right? We documented that here at CR years ago. Seemed to flourish in Northern Europe during the Ice Age, along with a curious strand of humanity that came out of the Chaldees. It was speculated that fair skin developed because of less sun in Northern Europe, I'm inclined to disagree. From the Spring Equinox until the Fall Equinox, the daylight hours are prolonged compared to the tropics, and in the higher latitudes can reach nearly continuous 24 hour sunlight. I suspect it was one biological way of shielding from too much sunlight.

Interesting the same N. Euro stock has a higher percentage of Neandertal genetics than the rest of us. That too has already been documented here.

Nice to see mention of the Homo Naledi find, still remains to see where they fit in the "tree," they can't be easily dated (still working on it) and their morphology is all out of whack with what "they" thought it should be. Pretty clearly in the Homo family, not Australopith, but there are quite a few "primitive" physical features in combination with far more advanced features than rightly should have been. Equally interesting, is where the bones were found...specifically, how they got where they were. It wasn't a "natural" situation, they had to be put there deliberately by others...implying ritual burial perhaps a million years ago (they are speculating), pushing reasoning thought back much further than until now imagined. At least 15 individuals and counting, over 1500 bones so far, comprising one of the most encompassing early hominid finds to date.
 
waggindraggin said:
I think I agree. Evolution requires many, many deaths, so its not like every mutation is good. Most of them are troublesome, like trying out new recipes without any prior experience often yields bad food.
Click to expand...
Who has more experience with evolution than nature? There is a "lot" of experience behind those recipes, hundreds of millions of years in fact.
 
Aupmanyav said:
Right, I think that is what happened with God also. He made mistakes. :D
Click to expand...
And the same mistakes are made over and over and over again...kinda like reincarnation, wouldn't you say? "If you can't get it right, go back and do it again until you get it right"...but you can never get it right.

It's all futile and hopeless...so why bother?
 
Another reason Ben Carson will not be getting my vote.. along with the lies he's been spouting from his website on social media.
 
Yep. Carson also believes the world is only 6,000 years old. It is mind boggling that the very sciences he uses to do his job prove that he is wrong about his religious beliefs have no bearing on what he chooses to believe. But that seems to be the popular trend in this country these days. Science is awesome, unless it proves something you don't want to believe. If science goes against your belief, you just dump the science.
 
He also has worked with aborted fetal tissue and is against women having the right to choose...I believe he will be a flash in the pan....as his views are known the gop will realize he is unelectable...and they hope this occurs before the primary
 
wil said:
He also has worked with aborted fetal tissue and is against women having the right to choose...I believe he will be a flash in the pan....as his views are known the gop will realize he is unelectable...and they hope this occurs before the primary
Click to expand...
and yet they are running with trump atm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top