Show Posts

1

Science / Re: Theory of Evolution anyone ?

« on: May 15, 2012, 07:51:11 PM »

Quote from: uq on May 15, 2012, 04:17:28 AM

What is your position on divine intervention, or the lack thereof, in the evolution of life? and specifically in random mutation?

that it's unnecessary, hence random mutation followed by selection, is enough. Accumulation happens of beneficial changes, it's not going straight from no eye to a human eye in one generation, but gradations, from no eye, to light sensitive cells, which increase in complexity over generations, or start working together, then compound eyes, made up of simple eyes, rods, cones. My point is there are many steps in between that we can't see because eyes don't fossilise easily, but there are creatures with simpler eyes today that probably existed before as well.

anyway, my understanding of things is still evolving, so I can't say I have a fixed position on this or anything else.

2

Science / Re: The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions

« on: May 14, 2012, 07:54:27 PM »

The idea of full control can be easily extended to full awareness of how a system plays out. That's all.

http://islamforwest.org/2012/01/09/deism-and-750-verses-of-the-holy-quran/

this was interesting.

3

Science / Re: Theory of Evolution anyone ?

« on: May 14, 2012, 07:53:20 PM »

http://islamforwest.org/2012/01/09/deism-and-750-verses-of-the-holy-quran/

I disagree with the idea that devolution is just as likely. If there is devolution, then, natural selection will remove it from the gene pool, since it would reduce fitness. Evolution will enhance fitness, hence there will be larger numbers in the next generation.

4

Science / Re: The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions

« on: May 13, 2012, 01:41:55 AM »

Quote from: Student of Allah on May 10, 2012, 10:20:55 PM

Shalom Aleikhem,
A need for continuous perfection does not necessitate the need for continuous active and physical participation in the process. Think about "Auto-Pilot Systems", they are programmed in a way that they make the aircraft adapt to the physical circumstance without the necessity of any pilot interventions. If that is a human technology and product of our knowledge, do you want to argue that a God has to be inferior and actually keep on piloting the process to make it adapt to change ?

Peace
------------- Student of Allah

Thank you. That was my point precisely.

5

Science / Re: The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions

« on: May 08, 2012, 04:56:06 AM »

Quote from: youssef4342 on May 07, 2012, 04:31:45 AM

Evolution would be true when you put God in the picture....

I would say that this mechanism is amazing enough that it does not require further interference once the process has started... A God that creates a perfect system that does not require further input is more becoming of an omniscient being than one that has to tweak things from time to time, since things weren't perfect the first time around.

6

Science / Re: The theory of Evolution disproved in 20 questions

« on: May 06, 2012, 07:06:16 PM »

Quote from: Student of Allah on February 01, 2012, 10:40:29 AM

1. Evolution has no answer and is not concerned with "Origin of life" , let alone it's purpose.

So, one might stop bringing up origin of life and blending it with evolution.

2. Random mutations submit to God, willingly. Just as gravity submits, mass submits...everything does. By the way, did I mention before that mutations alone does not result in "evolution", it is one of the factors among many.

This however does not mean that God had to sit with a bucket full of dust and put them together with his very physical hands, similarly, God does not need to use a magic wand and say "shaka laka boom boom" to create beings. He sets the rules, the end product can not escape his calculations.

----------- Student of Allah

In addition, I would like to say that it is not required for there to be any input once life originates. The issue I see here is that the concepts of mutations and natural selection are accepted, but that we can get that result solely through random mutation (both positive and negative), followed by natural selection (environmental pressures), then by accumulation of beneficial/ neutral changes (hence we have vestigial organs). You (I mean everyone on this forum, not just you specifically) could read Richard Dawkin's 'The blind watchmaker' and 'Climbing mount improbable.' They are very well written, and would be a great way to spend a few hours.

7

Science / Re: Theory of Evolution anyone ?

« on: May 06, 2012, 06:56:24 PM »

I would say that it is. What one often doesn't realise is that, for evolution to occur, there are 'accumulation' of changes in addition to random mutations and natural selection. There is no need for outside forces.

Richard Dawkin's books 'The Blind Watchmaker' and 'Climbing Mount Improbable' are good for getting a deeper understanding of evolution.

8